Man was in Pangaea

[The Barbarian]

15 minutes ago, dad2 said:

I was waiting for you to admit that. The dream dates are bogus. Faith based.

Nope.   In fact, they've been directly calibrated.   You see, the method used for the age of rock in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge has been checked by dating the rocks from the volcano that buried Pompeii.   Got it precisely right.  You, on the other hand, have only your non-scriptural imagination.   So your excuse won't work.

17 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Unless they were always moving it would not really be acceleration.

That excuse won't work, either.   If they actually were skidding around at the rates you imagine them to have, then it would take the same amount of energy (with the same amount of heating) to slow them down to the actual observed rates.   Rock and a hard place.

19 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Once the land masses did move, yes, it took some energy or produced some heat. That is why we see volcanoes and hot spots and etc I suppose.

Nope.  That's not where they come from.  Remember when I said that not knowing what you are talking about will trip you up?   It just did again.

20 minutes ago, dad2 said:

In other words we now obderve some tiny residual movement.

I know you want to believe that, but the evidence shows otherwise.  No point in denying it.

21 minutes ago, dad2 said:

 Post the reasons and evidence you think agrees and see why.

Already did.   Confirmed (by historical records) radioisotope data.   Physical laws, showing that the speed of continents you made up would boil the seas.   Grand Canyon showing entrenched meanders that take millions of years to form.   And more.  

You're just arguing that because you made up a new story, that has to be the truth.   That's just...

24 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Circular religion.

Yep.  I don't mind people not believing scripture . I do mind when they make up new doctrines and try to present that as 'God's way'.

26 minutes ago, dad2 said:

So what if that layer was weaker or stronger and more or less ductile in the former nature?

You're back to inventing stuff to support your imagination again.    Without evidence it's just "this is right, and it's true because I say it is."

27 minutes ago, dad2 said:

What if God arranged for force that caused the earth to spin or rotate more?

God is not some kind of stage magician you can call on to provide another miracle to make you imaginary things real.   If it's not in scripture and not in evidence, you're out of luck.

28 minutes ago, dad2 said:

In a scenario like this there is no initial force causing heat!

But as you just learned, slowing them down again would cause just as much heat.   So that won't work, either.

29 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Unless you can prove this present nature and laws existed guess who is talking fairy tales?

The evidence shows that they were.   All that rock in the Mid-Atlantic ridge shows increasing age as it moves away from the ridge.   And there's no discontinuity such as you'd see, if your imaginary "things were different then" stories were true.

30 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Any sudden shift in the rotation or spin of the planet I assume also would wreak havoc with the magnetic field. No?

And with every thing on the surface.   You see, the surface is turning at 25,000 mph at the equator.  Imagine sitting on a truck going 100 miles per hour and the driver suddenly changes speed or direction.   That's what would happen to people, buildings, etc. on the Earth, only at thousands of miles per hour.   So no, that didn't happen since humans have been on Earth.

 

[dad2]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

This is decidedly untestable and therefore unscientific.

Bingo! Science can't test a lot of things about the old world. Like spirits marrying people. Like people living well over 9 centuries. Like what the nature and laws were like then. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Sorry if you thought creation related things were supposed to fit into the tiny so called science box! No. Science is just something that deals with the here and now and the physical.

[WilliamL]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:26 PM, dad2 said:

The bible says in his days the earth was divided actually. Since Jewish tradition says that Peleg was about 6 years old at the time of Babel, that'll do er.

You put Jewish tradition above the chronology of Genesis 11?? 

On 1/27/2023 at 4:59 PM, teddyv said:

Suggesting that Pangaea only started separating some 4200-4300 years ago is fantasy.

What is fantasy is believing that the earth is 4 billion years old!

[BeyondET]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:04 PM, dad2 said:

Actually the bible says the earth was split or divided. Why pretend otherwise? Better to believe what it says rather than pretend it was changed etc.

Genesis 10:25

 

Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

 

Brown-Driver-Briggs'

1) to divide, split

1a) (Niphal) to be split, be divided

1b) (Piel)

1b1) to split, cleave

1b2) to divide

 

https://www.studylight.org/study-desk/interlinear.html?q1=Genesis+10:25

 

We also know about when this was. You are in no position to claim that God did not mean that the earth was split.

 

If your reading it literally, then it says nothing about the land on earth but earth itself.

I doubt the earth was split down the equator like splitting an apple nor the land.

[teddyv]

22 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Bingo! Science can't test a lot of things about the old world. Like spirits marrying people. Like people living well over 9 centuries. Like what the nature and laws were like then. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Sorry if you thought creation related things were supposed to fit into the tiny so called science box! No. Science is just something that deals with the here and now and the physical.

In your opening posts you appeared to be making claims and assertions that are testable hypotheses. But I guess that's not the case then?

[teddyv]

15 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

What is fantasy is believing that the earth is 4 billion years old!

Not really. There is direct physical evidence that points that way. If you don't like it or believe, that's fine. I know my literalist brethren don't share this view. Not really my problem.

Contextually, my comment was more toward the physical consequences of what was being suggested about tectonic events.

 

[WilliamL]

5 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Not really. There is direct physical evidence that points that way. If you don't like it or believe, that's fine. I know my literalist brethren don't share this view. Not really my problem.

Contextually, my comment was more toward the physical consequences of what was being suggested about tectonic events.

 

There is actually no DIRECT physical evidence for it, only a whole panoply of presumptions based on INDIRECT  evidence.

Ever read Velikovsky's book Earth in Upheaval? Would be a good place to start.

[dad2]

49 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

You put Jewish tradition above the chronology of Genesis 11?? 

What is fantasy is believing that the earth is 4 billion years old!

Explain about Gen 11 and why it says that Noah could not have lived at the same time as Abraham? If so then the tradition is wrong.

[dad2]

42 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

If your reading it literally, then it says nothing about the land on earth but earth itself.

I doubt the earth was split down the equator like splitting an apple nor the land.

The same word is used in Gen 1. God created the heaven and earth. I see no reason to think that this is what is meant.

 

As for how the earth was divided or split, we know that now. Nothing to do with an equator separation.

[dad2]

37 minutes ago, teddyv said:

In your opening posts you appeared to be making claims and assertions that are testable hypotheses. But I guess that's not the case then?

That depends what you want to test them with. Science is of very limited use in such an effort. The part where science does come in is where, for example they have determined that there was a supercontnient that divided. Also they know certain plants and animals lived on more than one continent. That does not mean they can test when or how long it took. For that any science we try to use fades out into pure belief based la la land.