Pangaea - how weird is that?

reply to post by pavil


That is the first time I have heard that Iceland was formed from a asteroid strike. Where did you find that info? Please

Also for the expanding earth hypothesis, comets and the like can and did bring water to Earth but I don't see how they would bring the quantities needed for all the oceans and ice caps, and the snowball earth, to have formed.

reply to post by m0r1arty


Well folks, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Pangaea is only possible if you believe in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old, or believe in the Gap Theory. The only true reason why people fall for pangaea is because it "appears" that the continents "fit" together. Well, aren't we just a bunch of great puzzle solvers. *sarcasm.

With the other "proof" of pangaea:
1. Fossil distribution
2. Coal distribution
3. Distinctive rock strata....
these 3 elements of earth nowhere near help prove pangaea existed. This is what I like to call throwing darts, then drawing the bullseye around the darts. There is no proof of pangaea because it never happened.

Also these 3 elements of earth stated above are the effects of a worldwide flood. This is supported all over earth and supported by record of past civilizations, atleast 270 civilizations.

I've already been down the path of a billion year old earth and evolution just a few years ago, but science just doesn't support an old earth. But believe what you want.

Originally posted by undo

i think he's onto something

Hmmm, much to ponder on both sides of the coin here. I disliked the tone of the youtube video, kinda seemed like his answer was the be all and end all. BUT.

I am no scientist, so excuse these thoughts I'm having on this subject.

This is how I am imagining things in my head. Imagine the big bang, and at this time, Perhaps "Dark Energy" or whatever it may be is like a tightly packed concrete slab, encasing all matter. This massive compression eventually shatters, such as can be seen when loading up concrete in a compression test. When it shatters, particles fly outwards. Now, imagine that the matter previously constricted by this 'dark energy' is able to spread further and faster apart as the 'dark energy' thins out, becoming more like a soup. Since its expanding into an empty vacuum, there is no friction (perhaps?) thus the further it expands, the thinner 'dark energy' becomes and normal matter is able to speed up.
This would account for the universe expanding, and accelerating. Standard gravity would still apply over billions of years, planets could still form, but as they race away, the pressure of 'dark energy' binding around all matter is thinned out allowing matter to expand and seemingly grow???

Perhaps, water, being a unique type of liquid, is able to expand more easily when faced with less resistance of 'dark energy'? Maybe this is how the oceans grew much faster to fill the voids??


As I said, I'm no scientist, and I'm not sure what science has really discovered about 'dark energy'? Maybe I'm calling it the wrong thing? If someone could think about my theory(EDIT: hypothesis) and perhaps explain it more succinctly I would appreciate it!

(I did mention this is another thread, but I would like some input!)

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Qumulys]

reply to post by m0r1arty

Take a world map and cut out the land masses. The put the jigsaw puzzle together and see what you get.
Also research the new ocean being born in Africa and redo the math. It is not that outlandish.(I don't mean to sound harsh, my people skills leave much to be desired due to Asberger's Syndrome. I have a lot of trouble with that.)

The mass of a single giant continent would have been larger than the mass of water on the opposite side of the planet.

The rotation would have been out of balance and cause massive shaking.

The turbulence would have been enough to tear the planet apart.

If there were indeed a unified landmass, It would have had to of been on either the north or south pole in order to keep the weight properly distributed.

The center of the continent would have been covered with ice.

And the water on the opposite pole would have looked quite amazing.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by president]

Originally posted by Ridhya
I would think theoretically speaking, the earth is one giant land mass connected by what we dont see, and the oceans are just on top of it, filling in the 'concave' parts of land...

This is what I always thought was possible while growing up, and to be honest it still doesn't seem that unlikely. I'm sure there is mountains of evidence (literally?) supporting the other theories, but is just seems to make sense that the earth is one land mass, which moves around atop of the lower layers of the earth. The tectonic plates make up the different 'pieces' if you will, but everything is still interconnected - so technically it would be one land mass.

I really think if we could suck up all the water from the oceans it would change science in ways that would be unimaginable to any human being.

Not to mention, imagine all the treasures we'd find, not just the gold and such but the proof of other civilizations. That to me would be the most incredible thing ever, other than exploring space further than we have so far.

Like it's been said before... We know more about space then we do about our own ocean.

reply to post by president


You are forgeting that the mass is the same under the surface there by doubleing the weight and off setting the the water. I would show a graphic if I knew how.
But water is more massive(heavier) than most solids due to the lesser mass and air incorperated, is it not?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Ratkiller]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Ratkiller]

Originally posted by pikestaff
so the earth is growing, to grow, you need food, or something that makes whatever it is growing, grow, so what is the earth 'feeding' on?

Maybe it feeds on life?

reply to post by totalmetal


I'm going to assume you mean the bodies of the human species, and animal species. But the problem with that assumption is, is that for example, a baby is born, but that baby was made using things that are already on this earth. More mass would have to be created somehow, the mass that is already contained on the earth is recycled over and over.

Human dies>Body put in ground>Body decomposes & living organisms feed>An animal eats (for example a cow eats grass that grew from the compounds of the decomposed body) and the recycling is complete

This process is done over and over therefore no new matter is created OR destroyed so somehow either the earth is magically creating mass or th2 theory that the earth is growing is a bunch of crap.

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by m0r1arty

 

Well folks, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Pangaea is only possible if you believe in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old, or believe in the Gap Theory.

Fortunately, all of these (save the "gap theory") are backed by the evidence at hand.

The only true reason why people fall for pangaea is because it "appears" that the continents "fit" together. Well, aren't we just a bunch of great puzzle solvers. *sarcasm.

No, actually. Pangaea explains much more than the fact that the coastlines of the continents appear to match up. Fortunately, you list most of the evidence yourself:

1. Fossil distribution

Yep.

2. Coal distribution

Yep.

3. Distinctive rock strata....

Yep.

these 3 elements of earth nowhere near help prove pangaea existed.

Got a better theory?

This is what I like to call throwing darts, then drawing the bullseye around the darts.

How so?

There is no proof of pangaea because it never happened.

Assuming your conclusion. You have decided that Pangaea did not exist, and so you are dismissing the evidence out of hand.

Also these 3 elements of earth stated above are the effects of a worldwide flood.

A flood would have achieved all these effects how, exactly? Especially the fossils - how did it alter their carbon counts?

This is supported all over earth and supported by record of past civilizations, atleast 270 civilizations.

No, it is supported by the religious teachings of past civilizations, which isn't surprising, as religions often borrow from one another.

I've already been down the path of a billion year old earth and evolution just a few years ago, but science just doesn't support an old earth.

Yes, it does. Religion doesn't. Big difference.

Originally posted by president
The mass of a single giant continent would have been larger than the mass of water on the opposite side of the planet.

No, it wouldn't. The mass of Pangaea was the sum total of all the landmass in it, which would be the total landmass of the current continents. It is not physically possible for it to have had greater mass than the water.

reply to post by highlyoriginal


Assume what now? I was just throwing an idea out therewith a sarcastic grin on my face buddy.

If the earth were smaller, and therefor hotter as suggested earlier, then would not the majority of the water exist as vapor? That would make for a fairly humid atmosphere, maybe the type that plant life would thrive in, as was meant to be the case given fossil examples? Wouldn't it also mean the pull of gravity would be less making it more plausible for early flying dinosaurs to have been able to actually fly as I believe I have seen stated that pterodactyls simply could not fly had they existed today? Also, would an expanding earth necessarily exclude the process of subduction? That would require a uniform expansion, if that is even possible. If it is not possible then there will be at most minimal subduction as expansion in one area causes subduction in another, the net result being an overall increase in diameter. Im no scientist, so these are just thoughts that have arisen as I've read through this thread. The expanding earth theory is an interesting one.

Originally posted by constantwonder
Ok one land mass doesn't jive with you. I got that. What, however, are you postulating here, that plate tectonics is wrong?

Hey man I'm fine with 1 landmass. I just think "Wow!" when I see it visually.

Perhaps you were born with the ability to be presented with things you will never see for yourself and think 'meh' but I'm made of simpler stuff.

I've always thought of other Earth like planets as having separate land masses, now I don't - that's all.



Thanks everyone for your input, there is a broad range of opinions based from science and religion so far. Regardless of your side of the fence it is the same green Earth we stand upon - let's hear more!

-m0r

Originally posted by Beancounter72
Hydrocarbons DON'T come from compressed organic matter. They're the product of chemical processes occuring naturally deep within the Earth's crust.

Sorry man, I must have been schooled wrong at high school and University and have friends all over the world working in an industry based upon those same misconceptions I had.

Corrected now

-m0r

Originally posted by space cadet
I have always found the pangea theory to be fascinating, but after just watching the vid provided here about expanding earth, I gotta say that it makes total sense. However, I would like to know what is science's argument against expanding earth, why, since it is not a new theory, hasn't this theory been examined and brought to attention? And I don't think the answer would be that they are afraid of telling the truth, or afraid to change what we have always been told.

space
I am just jumping in the thread with this post.
I hope I am not stepping on any toes.

Think of earth being a lot like Venus 4 billion years ago or so. Or a pre Venus even better. An actual molten mass of all the universal elements. Spinning and swirling like a gold pan in the hands of a 49er. As things start to cool or coagulate as they are aggregated by weight.Bare in mind that there is no water here. The interior of the earth is still a molten mass and subject to vent through the hardening crust. The atmosphere begins to sort the elements of gasses and acids into a more modern type H2o + nitrogen atmosphere creating precipitation and oceans filled with the salts eroded off the surface of the crust.

Add tectonics and stir.

Expanding earth is solved by gravity. It attracts particles, meteorites and such. Hotel California. You can check in BUT you can never leave.

K - I'm fine with one giant landmass or several giant land mass - it's possible but the "theory" about the earth expanding as shown in vid borders on imposibility imho due to laws governing the very existence of life on earth. What I mean is that if the earth expanded/expanding then diameter obviously grew, thus moving us closer to the sun. According to scientific calculations if the surface earth is 1% (not sure bout this # - but someone verify) closer to the sun then the temperature of the planet will rise considerably, thereby killing all life. The opposite is ice cold if the diameter is smaller as it will push us a bit further from the sun. So imho - the size of the earth is just perfect from whence life started. He who created it made it just perfect. Inteligence at work my friend!

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by m0r1arty

 

Well folks, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Pangaea is only possible if you believe in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old, or believe in the Gap Theory.

Fortunately, all of these (save the "gap theory") are backed by the evidence at hand.

If the earth was once a fire ball and slowly cooled over millions of years, how do tectonic plates form? How do mobile plates suddenly form from a solid rock? thats right... they don't. they were created.

The only true reason why people fall for pangaea is because it "appears" that the continents "fit" together. Well, aren't we just a bunch of great puzzle solvers. *sarcasm.

No, actually. Pangaea explains much more than the fact that the coastlines of the continents appear to match up. Fortunately, you list most of the evidence yourself:

You say pangaea explains much more but you dont list much more of anything than what i did.

1. Fossil distribution

there was no distribution, dinosaurs already covered the continents when the flood occurred. the two words alone "fossil distribution" in no way are evidence of pangaea.

Yep.

2. Coal distribution

See above

Yep.

3. Distinctive rock strata....

see above

Yep.

these 3 elements of earth nowhere near help prove pangaea existed.

Got a better theory?

This is what I like to call throwing darts, then drawing the bullseye around the darts.

How so?
because you use logical evidence of a flood to assume there was one supercontinent. nowhere in history is there any evidence of a supercontinent, but there is a flood.

There is no proof of pangaea because it never happened.

Assuming your conclusion. You have decided that Pangaea did not exist, and so you are dismissing the evidence out of hand.

i'm not dismissing, i'm correctly identifying the evidence of a flood

Also these 3 elements of earth stated above are the effects of a worldwide flood.

A flood would have achieved all these effects how, exactly? Especially the fossils - how did it alter their carbon counts?

This is supported all over earth and supported by record of past civilizations, atleast 270 civilizations.

No, it is supported by the religious teachings of past civilizations, which isn't surprising, as religions often borrow from one another.

You are just plain ignorant on this one. You need to do more research.

I've already been down the path of a billion year old earth and evolution just a few years ago, but science just doesn't support an old earth.

Yes, it does. Religion doesn't. Big difference.

You are spitting your opinions and you did not come forth with any evidence of your own. "You gots a lota esplaining to do"

reply to post by Ratkiller


If science to you is cutting out pieces of a map and forcing them together, you have just blown my mind.

You HAVE to be kidding!!

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by m0r1arty

 

Well folks, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Pangaea is only possible if you believe in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old, or believe in the Gap Theory.

Fortunately, all of these (save the "gap theory") are backed by the evidence at hand.

If the earth was once a fire ball and slowly cooled over millions of years, how do tectonic plates form? How do mobile plates suddenly form from a solid rock? thats right... they don't. they were created.

Actually, yes, they do form like that.
You see, as Earth cooled, the outer crust would form into a layer of solid rock. However, as pressure translates into heat, the core of the Earth remains molten.
The surface of the Earth wouldn't cool uniformly, though, and as such we get the beginnings of the plates. And these plates wouldn't always stick together, either - sometimes they would break into new plates. Some of these plates would re-melt into the mantle, and the rest would grow from the continued cooling around them until we have the plates we see today.

The only true reason why people fall for pangaea is because it "appears" that the continents "fit" together. Well, aren't we just a bunch of great puzzle solvers. *sarcasm.

No, actually. Pangaea explains much more than the fact that the coastlines of the continents appear to match up. Fortunately, you list most of the evidence yourself:

You say pangaea explains much more but you dont list much more of anything than what i did.

If you look further down, you'll see that I brought up what you did and provided sources. Note the bolded part of my post.

1. Fossil distribution

there was no distribution, dinosaurs already covered the continents when the flood occurred.

And your evidence for this is? You say the same thing about all the evidence for Pangaea - that it's actually evidence for young-Earth creationism - but what evidence supports the idea that the fossils were all placed there at the same time? How did the fossils get placed into different geological layers? Why are their carbon counts different by thousands of years? Why do they show distinct evidence of evolution?

This is what I like to call throwing darts, then drawing the bullseye around the darts.

How so?

because you use logical evidence of a flood to assume there was one supercontinent. nowhere in history is there any evidence of a supercontinent, but there is a flood.

Nowhere in history is there any evidence of a flood, but there is a supercontinent.
All the evidence points toward an old Earth. You simply ignore the dating techniques. Why?

There is no proof of pangaea because it never happened.

Assuming your conclusion. You have decided that Pangaea did not exist, and so you are dismissing the evidence out of hand.

i'm not dismissing, i'm correctly identifying the evidence of a flood

Then show how it is evidence of a flood rather than Pangaea. You have to show that the flood was capable of doing all these things, including rearranging the carbon count of all the fossils involved.

Also these 3 elements of earth stated above are the effects of a worldwide flood.

A flood would have achieved all these effects how, exactly? Especially the fossils - how did it alter their carbon counts?

I really would like an answer for this part.

This is supported all over earth and supported by record of past civilizations, atleast 270 civilizations.

No, it is supported by the religious teachings of past civilizations, which isn't surprising, as religions often borrow from one another.

You are just plain ignorant on this one. You need to do more research.

No, you do.

I've already been down the path of a billion year old earth and evolution just a few years ago, but science just doesn't support an old earth.

Yes, it does. Religion doesn't. Big difference.

You are spitting your opinions and you did not come forth with any evidence of your own. "You gots a lota esplaining to do"

So do you. How does a flood explain all the different conditions present?