Man was in Pangaea

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

The mountain erupted in 79AD you do realize that? How in tarnation does this relate to the division of earth in Peleg's day. Try again. If you don't do a lot better I may have to gong you.

It has nothing to do with Peleg specifically. You were expressing confusion about what the radiometric dating was compared against in @The Barbarian's post. In fact, I quoted your exact statement:

Quote

Checked against what? Comparing dream dates with dream dates is not checking anything.

He was discussing that radiometric methods are able to accurately measure the date of past events like that eruption. So, I simply added that, we know Vesuvius erupted in AD79 from non-radiometric sources. But the radiometric dating also gives us the same date. Ergo, radiometric dating is reliable. It is not "dream dating" no matter how many times you say that over and over. 

 

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Why are you posting here? Have you nothing that relates to the topic and dates? Science tells us the continents were together. The bible tells us they split apart and when.

I am here because I am interested in this as a geologist. However you are making wild unsubstantiated claims. You now seem to be moving towards threatening others (however mildly).

I'll bow out of this anyway since there is no profit in this discussion.

[BeyondET]

17 hours ago, dad2 said:

The name game as to what we want to call various land masses as the separated changes nothing. It may show us that you place faith in the dream dating of science, That is about all. I notice you posted no details to thrash.

Pangaea wasn't the only single supercontinent.

You picked out one Pangaea and ran with that. Apparently you didn't know about the others.

Faith in a dream?, the bible doesn't mention pangaea, science does where you got the name. Your being a bit hypocritical on science they named it pangaea the supercontinent.

Let the dry land appear still happens today. Underwater volcanos erupt break the surface of the water and form new land. New stars are being created right now somewhere in the universe. Along with solar systems. Galaxies merge and create a bigger galaxy, the Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision course.

Edited January 31, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

17 hours ago, dad2 said:

Checked against what? Comparing dream dates with dream dates is not checking anything. As I mentioned the move very probably happened in the former nature and laws. That means we do not know radioactive decay existed at all. Who knows what relationship isotopes had with each other rather than a parent daughter relationship? You see science assumes that for example, that all (of what is now called daughter material) came to exist BY radioactive decay as it is now produced. Yet there was already stuff here at creation. That includes what is now daughter material in many cases. Then we have isotopes that changed or were produced in whatever processes existed in the former nature  (rather than were produced by radioactive decay) from creation till after the flood and the days of Peleg. Those isotopes were also here already as well as created ones at the start of this present state. If radioactive decay is something that began when this present nature began, then the way science interprets amounts of daughter/parent isotopes is totally wrong. (for that time beyond when this nature existed) That means radioactive dating is correct for dates up to a certain threshold and time only. That time and threshold does NOT include any time in the former nature such as the isotopes in the mid Atlantic Ridge! That leaves you with circular reasoning and circular inbred beliefs when you compare pre present nature stuff with pre present nature stuff. As I said, it is purely belief based.

Yet what rate is that? Did it move in hours? Days? Years? A century or two even? If it moved while the world was still in the former nature then we do not know how much heat would be involved at all. All calculations we could make would be using present nature forces and laws! Then there is the matter of how long the slid took. Heat produced in 2 centuries for example would probably not be the same heat produced in 8 hours, right? Then there is the issue that by the time the move was almost over, we were likely then in the present nature. So we would expect some heat. Even a lot of heat. That is precisely what the evidence shows us. There is a lot of hot spots down there and molten rock etc. It is only a matter of how we interpret the evidence.

Regarding the heat under the earth provide details if you claim that much of it could not have come from a continental move? We will see who gets tripped up. Bring it.

Already dashed that little belief collection to smithereens. In this post.

I raised some possibilities for discussion actually. Since they appear to be above your paygrade you try to avoid dealing with any details.

Interpreting evidence is the name of the game here. By science and anyone else looking at it.

He never offered Genesis the record of beginnings as any such thing. People who refuse to believe it may view it as magic. (as if God was restricted to work only the way you are familiar with)

No, we never even discussed how long the rapid move took etc. Nor have you ruled out the heat we do see under the earth as possibly being caused by the event.

---Lurkers, just so you know, the interior of the earth is not known. Science has theories based on indirect evidence such as sound waves they interpret! They believe lies as a foundation to their models though, such as that earth came to exist in some imaginary smash ups etc. No one has actually been down there of course. So it should be good if Barbarian tries to tell us how the heat all got there.

Strange canard. Why would there be some 'discontinuity'? If the land moved in the former nature almost all the way, whatever isotope patterns or magnetic patterns we see happened IN the former nature. It is not like we would expect some line in the bottom of the ocean where it all changed one day.

Bingo! If any change happened to the rotation or spin it would be catastrophic. Even a small change. The issue then is how small was the change? Ha One other known factor in this equation is that the bible indicates that a year used to be 360 days! It is now something like 5 days longer. Why? Something did change!

 Another interesting tidbit on that issue is that in the future the bible again talks about 360 day years. So not only the plants will again grow fast, and people will lived many centuries, and spirits will live on earth among men, but the year will again be the original 360 days!

Let's do the math shall we. How do you get centuries out of subtracting 5 days in a year? and as well the earth wouldn't be a 24 hour day but something like 23 and some minutes shorter to get to 360 days a year.

If a person is 50 today and the year is at 365 days. Minus 5 days per year and you end up with 250 days shorter. Thus the person would be 49 and a couple of months.

Your statement isn't bright at all your just dreaming and rambling on about made up stuff, plants wouldn't grow faster because a year is 5 days shorter lol...

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by BeyondET

[dad2]

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Pangaea wasn't the only single supercontinent.

I already said it doesn't matter what you call it. I use the name because it is familiar to most people.

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You picked out one Pangaea and ran with that. Apparently you didn't know about the others.

Feel free to evidence 'others'. Ha Show the reasons you think it was 'others' rather than phases. Bring it. Go ahead and make my day.

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Faith in a dream?, the bible doesn't mention pangaea, science does where you got the name. Your being a bit hypocritical on science they named it pangaea the supercontinent.

It mentions that the earth split. So you can call the original whatever you like. The word supercontinent does the job nicely. You can call it a tomato or a rose if you like.

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Let the dry land appear still happens today. Underwater volcanos erupt break the surface of the water and form new land. New stars are being created right now somewhere in the universe. Along with solar systems. Galaxies merge and create a bigger galaxy, the Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision course.

How many galaxies merged in the few hundred years since modern science started to look? Ha. Much of that is faith based conjecture based on movements and other things we see today. As for processes that make land appear today, they are a tiny shadow of creation week. No comparison. That is like comparing the glint in your eye to the noon day sun.

[dad2]

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Let's do the math shall we. How do you get centuries out of subtracting 5 days in a year?and as well the earth wouldn't be a 24 hour day but something like 23 and some minutes shorter to get to 360 days a year.

I don't. How do you get that I think you can do that? If the earth rotated a little bit slower would days be a little bit shorter or longer?

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

If a person is 50 today and the year is at 365 days. Minus 5 days per year and you end up with 250 days shorter. Thus the person would be 49 and a couple of months.

Your statement isn't bright at all your just dreaming and rambling on about made up stuff, plants wouldn't grow faster because a year is 5 days shorter lol...

 

To break it gently to you, what is not bright is not what I said, but what you think I meant. I notice you did not even specify what quote you were addressing from a very long post.

[dad2]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

Explain how a volcano that blew in 79 AD relates to the time of Peleg?

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Historical records.   The Romans kept meticulous records about things like this.   Your dream-dates gathered by revising Biblical verses are unsupported, but the calibration of the Pompeii eruption was spot on.

There were no Romans in the days of Peleg. Focus.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In fact, there is no evidence whatever, and no scriptural support for your imaginary "former nature."   You just pulled that out of the air to support your failed doctrines.

Or against the nature that existed. Either way. That doesn't help your desired belief.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since those have been tested on strata of known structure, we can be sure that physics works in the Earth just as it does everywhere else.  In fact, geologists regularly use that process in oil explorations, precisely because it works.   Remember when I told you that not knowing what you're talking about can bite you?   It did again.

Ok so start with a list of people that tested the strata in Peleg's day? We wait. Surely you would not be trying to slip by an unfounded belief that nature was the same here?

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Mostly from radioactive decay.   The physics of that heating is well-understood.   Would you like to learn more about it?

There was radioactive decay in Adam's day? Prove it. (hint: don't use dream dates to imagine when Adam lived) You see, my current opinion (subject to evidence should new evidence arise) is that the flood was somewhere around the KT layer. Science tea reads the isotope patterns in rocks to divine that this means that was some 65 million years ago or so. In real time it was more like maybe 4500 years ago.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Doesn't matter if it took a year (as YE creationists usually say) or 200 years.  The heat from the motion would boil the seas.

You assume a lot. Show us the math for 200 years, assuming that it is only the motion that caused heat (rather than some imagined initial force to start them moving) We wait. Another possible variable in all of this is we don't really know what happened to the flood waters that remained on earth after God made them recede! How much was deep under the earth after the flood again? How much was on the surface? Could water have factored in in some way, and the result be that the current seas were left on the surface by the move? So many possible variables we don't know. But do show us your math

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Heat always moves from hotter places to cooler places. 
In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature
https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/flowing-from-hot-to-cold-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-174307/

Since the mantle is much hotter than boiling water, your story falls apart yet again.   

Now it is hot. Then? Remember that the starting absolute faith based fable science rests on has to do with the earth NOT being created! They imagine heat from some fantasy cosmic crash or whatever. Total baloney. So could massive continents sliding cause heat to warm the mantle if it was not so warm then? Again, so many unknowns. It truly is just a matter of belief and choice as to what we believe.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There would be, if your "former nature" story was true.   There would be an observable change when it went from some other set of physical constants to the ones we see operating today.   But there isn't. 

Says you. I don't see why. If the forces that govern how atoms and molecules work changed, how would anyone see that? Do you see them now? No. All we see is the result. You see, the magnetic fluctuations and isotope pattern changes may be evidence it was changing!? You chose to view these as evidence it did not change! Why would you not lean toward favoring the bible and God in picking what belief you use?

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The old Hebrew calendar, like most calendars back then, had it so.   The Romans did too for a time.   But it didn't work very well, because in a century or so, it was completely wrong.  Even 365 days was eventually wrong.  That's how we got the Julian calendar.  Julius Caesar revised the calendar to 365.25.   Which in the 1600s was revised by Pope Gregory to the slightly shorter one we have today.  Which is still not perfect.   The Earth didn't change measurably.   Our way of counting years changed.

The reason it is now wrong could relate to the rotation etc.  You jump to the conclusion blindly that they were just 'wrong' before.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But of course, your imaginary change in spin to save your doctrines would not have been enough to do any of this, without destruction of the Ark.  The recession of the Moon is caused by transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, and the Earth's rotational speed is declining by a very tiny amount.   Fossil tidal rhythmites show that the day was much shorter many millions of years ago.

 

You think the change if one happened to the rotation of earth had to be solely due to the moon? Strange belief. Remember we do not know what heavenly bodies or forces existed in that day. The moon did exist of course, but how far away it was we don't know.

 

So if a day was shorter according to your data, how much shorter? Something like 5 days maybe? Ha

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Explain how a volcano that blew in 79 AD relates to the time of Peleg?

It merely shows that radioisotope dating of rocks is precisely accurate.   If you'd like to show some evidence that it worked differently in the past, you'll need to provide some evidence for it.  In fact, there is no evidence whatever, and no scriptural support for your imaginary "former nature."   You just pulled that out of the air to support your failed doctrines.    If you can't show us evidence for it, then it's just another of those unscriptural miracles you keep inventing.

Heat within the earth is mostly from radioactive decay.   The physics of that heating is well-understood.   Would you like to learn more about it?

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

There was radioactive decay in Adam's day? Prove it.

Sure:

Oklo reactor, two billion years ago.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Now it is hot. Then? Remember that the starting absolute faith based fable science rests on has to do with the earth NOT being created!

No, that's wrong.  Most scientists are good with God creating all things.   The difference is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

It truly is just a matter of belief and choice as to what we believe.

Nope.   Christians have evidence to support the ancient earth.  You have only your invented stories.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Says you. I don't see why. If the forces that govern how atoms and molecules work changed, how would anyone see that?

Things would have worked differently in the past.  But we see no evidence at all for that belief.   Everything looks just as it would it God's laws of nature worked without any hitches.

Calendars became more accurate as people learned more.   Until they were better, the calendars kept getting out of sync, with seasons coming in the wrong months.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

The reason it is now wrong could relate to the rotation etc.

Nope.  If that were true, they wouldn't be getting out of sync.   Over a century or so, you'd start to see problems.   Which is why the calendar has been reformed.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

You think the change if one happened to the rotation of earth had to be solely due to the moon?

That's what the data shows.   Huge earthquakes can cause miniscule changes, but the recession of the Moon caused by tidal transfer of energy, with consequent slowing of the Earth's rotation, shows that is what's going on:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134625/conservation-of-angular-momentum-in-earth-moon-system

 

[dad2]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It merely shows that radioisotope dating of rocks is precisely accurate.   If you'd like to show some evidence that it worked differently in the past, you'll need to provide some evidence for it.  In fact, there is no evidence whatever, and no scriptural support for your imaginary "former nature." 

There is no evidence whatsoever or scriptural support for your same state past. Believe what you like. Why would the isotopes produced in this present nature NOT reflect the decay half lives?

 

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Heat within the earth is mostly from radioactive decay. The physics of that heating is well-understood.   Would you like to learn more about it?

Sure:

Oklo reactor, two billion years ago.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor

The Oklo fable is funny. No wonder they flooded the whole area totally many years ago. No one can really go back and check. The Oklo fable includes the magic elevator ride. For no apparent reason just when they need it to, dunks miles under the earth. Then, once again, just as needed it resurfaces on cue at the right time so that a reaction can be explained in a same state past way. Hilarious. There is a lot more fun we could have with this fable. Suffice it to say it is bad religion. Purely belief based. I am surprised you would dare to mention it here. Nor does it relate to the days of Peleg nor the supercontinent. So all you have offered is something from after the days of Jesus. That is not even relevant. Pretty lame.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   Christians have evidence to support the ancient earth.  You have only your invented stories.

Yet you post none. Nor if you spam a link can you defend any relevant points should there accidentally be any in the link.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Things would have worked differently in the past.  But we see no evidence at all for that belief.   Everything looks just as it would it God's laws of nature worked without any hitches.

From science...why would there be? Science has no clue and believes blindly it golly gee must have been the same. The bible comes down heavily on the side of the old world being quite different in a fundamental way.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Calendars became more accurate as people learned more.   Until they were better, the calendars kept getting out of sync, with seasons coming in the wrong months.

Nope.  If that were true, they wouldn't be getting out of sync.   Over a century or so, you'd start to see problems.   Which is why the calendar has been reformed.

In other words ancient calendars for whatever reasons do no jive with the modern one and you have an opinion as to why. 

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's what the data shows.   Huge earthquakes can cause miniscule changes, but the recession of the Moon caused by tidal transfer of energy, with consequent slowing of the Earth's rotation, shows that is what's going on:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134625/conservation-of-angular-momentum-in-earth-moon-system

 

So what? The moon dunnit is pretty lame. What a joke as to where science thinks the moon came from also. True comedy. Some imaginary cosmic smash up that left dust and it somehow coalesced or some such nonsense that has no possible proof. Basically it is another in a long line of fables with no possible proof used by a physical science method that grasps at any 'anything BUT God' straw.

 

 You have failed to offer any substance whatsoever on the topic so far. But I get it, you will embrace any theory but an honest reading of God's word. Ho hum

[Guest]

On 1/30/2023 at 7:14 PM, dad2 said:

No confusion at all. What you need are dates that relate to the topic. Peleg relates. Something that blew in 79AD does not. Simple.

I said the dates are fine as long as this present nature and laws existed. (to be more precise not quite that long because what they use for collaboration like tree rings are not usable either too near the time when things changed)

Sorry about your inability to focus and post on topic and your strange paranoia.

This is an undeserved personal attack on @teddyv. I may not agree with everything teddyv says, but he certainly doesn't deserve the above.

[The_Patriot21]

It seems a lot of people in this thread have lost site of the actual topic. 

Perhaps it would be best if everyone took a step back and counted to 10 before starting back up again, or maybe not at all as the subject really isn't being discussed anymore.