Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

page: 16
54
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
To keep it simple for you to understand is that the Pangaea theory and the video requires for new land to appear and old to disappear. You need a unique set of mechanics to make it work with bending and twisting, 10's of thousands of miles of continental drifting. Remember what Pangaea theory is, just that, a theory.

Here is a simple image to show you that the continents did not have to transform themselves and move around the globe like eggs on a frying pan ( silly) That the continental plates maintained their shape more or less aside from the stretching and outer expansion to fit on a larger globe.


As you can see the continents met at the Pacific and that North America and Asia have ALWAYS been connected. Pangaea has them separating and crashing into themselves multiple times and there is absurd..

The people who support the Pangaea theory and its creator could only envision the surface land and a 2 dimensional map.
As you can see North america and Asia never separated but split apart at the north due to expansion. I don't blame people for the lack of understanding or lack of information. Pangaea was based on old or no data limited by the lack of data and technology of the 80+year old unproven theory.
edit on 8-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Here is a video to show how some of the expanding earth mechanics works. Simple but illustrative
.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 

It's pretty obvious how the mechanics works in that example, including the cause of the expansion.

If the mechanics really worked like that on Earth, we'd know the cause of the expansion and mainstream science would buy it. But actually this video demonstrates how expanding Earth hypothesis fails, because it shows the cause of the expansion, while on Earth there is no evidence of any such cause, or even a different cause...there's no evidence of any cause at all.

Find a cause of the expansion, and evidence for it, and you might have something.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This map destroys Pangaea theory on its own.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Exactly what is this map showing???? Please elaborate



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This map destroys Pangaea theory on its own.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Exactly what is this map showing???? Please elaborate


That the Americas and Asia have ALWAYS been connected and pangaea theory has them bumping and crashing in each other multiple times which isnt true at all therefore the Pangaea theory is debunked.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
i found this thread very interesting first time around, and considered the various points etc.

what to me still remains unanswered (satisfactorily) is where the extra mass and volume comes from, cos there is an absolute #### load of extra mass and volume required for the expansion referenced.

without going through the whole thread again, or the last few pages, where would that come from?

"rocks from space" and the changing density of magma becoming rock really doesnt provide what is needed.

this leaves me thinking that that expanding earth cant be accepted, and while there is interesting evidence raised in the theory, it must point to other so-far uncovered causes instead.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
i found this thread very interesting first time around, and considered the various points etc.

what to me still remains unanswered (satisfactorily) is where the extra mass and volume comes from, cos there is an absolute #### load of extra mass and volume required for the expansion referenced.

without going through the whole thread again, or the last few pages, where would that come from?
Its not certain that any mass was gained. It is possible the earth was much more dense in the past and the expansion stretched out and thinned out the crust much like a balloon does not need to gain mass or material to grow.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Its a fact that South America and New Zealand were once together and with this fact alone aside from all the geological evidence proves that the continents were connected in the Pacific as well which is only possible on a smaller diameter earth.people.wku.edu...
edit on 12-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I'm sorry but the Expanding Earth theory is total honk and was disproved decades ago. Geology is a serious science with serious theories. It isn't made from woo.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


thanks for the reply..

thing is, that still leaves a heck of a lot of extra volume added over time... that aint coming from magma metamorphing into various types of rock. not on your nelly

i dont totally reject the idea/hypothesis, i just dont accept that that the evidence is nearly as strong as the accepted theory



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


deffo, geology is much better at fighting than tesselation and jigsaw skillz




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
No evidence of continents "crashing" into eachother??

Ever heard of the Matterhorn, it has been proven that the uplift occurred when Africa and Europe moved into each other, and is to this day still growing.





Formation Different layers of rock can be seen: the lower part is sedimentary rocks (yellow); the middle part is greenschists from the oceanic crust. The peak itself (above the seracs) is gneisses from the African continent. The formation of the Matterhorn (and the whole Alpine range) started with the break-up of the Pangaea continent 200 million years ago into Laurasia (containing Europe) and Gondwana (containing Africa). While the rocks constituting the nearby Monte Rosa remained in Laurasia, the rocks constituting the Matterhorn found themselves in Gondwana, separated by the newly formed Tethys Ocean. 100 million years ago the extension of the Tethys Ocean stopped and the Apulian plate broke from Gondwana and moved toward the European continent. This resulted in the closure of the western Tethys by subduction under the Apulian plate (with the Piemont-Liguria Ocean first and Valais Ocean later). The subduction of the oceanic crust left traces still visible today at the base of the Matterhorn (accretionary prism). The orogeny itself began after the end of the oceanic subduction when the European continental crust collided with the Apulian continent, resulting in the formation of nappes. The Matterhorn acquired its characteristic pyramidal shape in much more recent times as it was caused by natural erosion over the past million years. At the beginning of alpine orogeny, the Matterhorn was only a rounded mountain like a hill. Because its height is above the snowline, its flanks are covered by ice, resulting from the accumulation and compaction of snow. During the warmer period of summer, part of the ice melts and seeps into the bedrock. When it freezes again, it fractures pieces of rock because of its dilatation (freeze-thaw), forming a cirque. Four cirques led to the shape of the mountain. Because of its recognizable shape, many other similar mountains around the world were named or nicknamed the 'Matterhorn' of their respective countries or mountain ranges.[19]


wiki
edit on 12-3-2013 by tw0330 because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-3-2013 by tw0330 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tw0330
No evidence of continents "crashing" into eachother??

........ Africa and Europe moved into each other, and is to this day still growing.




Pangaea theory has been debunked in this thread multiple times. What has been proven is that North America and Asia have always been connected and the Pangaea theory based on old maps and before the time of bathymetry maps, geological, underwater surveys and satellites were available. The Pangaea theory was based on 2d mapss found in most elementary schools. Though may aspects of theory are correct but fails when it claims The Americas and Asia were bouncing off each other and as the maps prove there were no collisions or a complete ripping apart then crashing together again of one Major continent. .
edit on 12-3-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The problem with geography and common knowledge is that we have been shown the same map for years and have a delusion of how the coninents really look. Here is a different perspective which shows that the Pangaea theory is bunk on a lack of data.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Unfortunately (for you) it hasn't been debunked in the scientific community. This website is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's a website that contains some pretty interesting (and insane) theories.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I'll have to check, but isn't life generally believed to have evolved from the water first? With the fish and such being early on in the evolutionary process? Not sure how that would fit in to this theory.

Additionally there is a Biblical record of a massive water atmosphere surround the Earth pre-flood. Then with the flood it all fell to the Earth.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Unfortunately (for you) it hasn't been debunked in the scientific community. This website is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's a website that contains some pretty interesting (and insane) theories.


Aw ya then you should mail them a letter telling them to change Pangaea "theory" to "fact". Its still called a theory for a reason.
See Pangaea theory is partially correct. Pangaea is greek for one land or all lands. As they were all one at one point, but Pangaea theory failed at explaining the Pacific spread because no bathymetry maps were available as well as sea bed floor dating. Australia, New Zealand and South America were connected in the Pacific which is only possible on a smaller globe. Pangaea ignores that based on lack of information and ability to understand and to discard old idioms.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I'll have to check, but isn't life generally believed to have evolved from the water first? With the fish and such being early on in the evolutionary process? Not sure how that would fit in to this theory.

Additionally there is a Biblical record of a massive water atmosphere surround the Earth pre-flood. Then with the flood it all fell to the Earth.


IF the earth was submerged at one point having earth expand would lower the ocean levels and reveal the continents below.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Um, no, South America and Australia were never connected. Antarctica was in the way for a start. We know this thanks to the geology and the fossil record. We also know that Pangea was just the last in a series of super-continents, again thanks to the geology and the fossil record. Take a look at the Appalachians for a start - they were created by the formation of Pangea.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Continental Drift is a busted flush and that the planet is continuing to expand?



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doalrite


How would the Earth grow??? Is there that much space debris landing on us to make such a difference?
edit on 11-9-2012 by Doalrite because: (no reason given)


Nuclear decay. As radioactive elements decay they turn into less dense elements. Those less dense elements take more space up. So the volume increases.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I'll have to check, but isn't life generally believed to have evolved from the water first? With the fish and such being early on in the evolutionary process? Not sure how that would fit in to this theory.

Additionally there is a Biblical record of a massive water atmosphere surround the Earth pre-flood. Then with the flood it all fell to the Earth.


The Bible is not a scientific document. Relying on it for geological theory would be like thinking that the Noddy books can be used for History lessons.





top topics
 
54
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join