Man was in Pangaea

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So is gravitation.   But I suggest you pay attention.   

"It's only a theory" suggests a failure to understand what "theory" means in science.

Gravitation is a theory and a fact, like plate tectonics.    Gravitational theory explains why we observe gravity, and Plate tectonics theory explains why we observe continents moving about.

Your confusion is between theory and the phenomena theories explain.

 

The effects of Gravity are observed while Pangaea is 100% theory. 

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

The effects of Gravity are observed while Pangaea is 100% theory. 

No. That's wrong.  We can actually measure the speed at which the plates that were once all part of Pangea are moving away from each other.  And of course all that evidence I mentioned clearly shows it is a fact. 

I offered to show you.   If you think you'd rather not see it, I'd be pleased to show anyone else who might be interested.

 

[Sparks]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No. That's wrong.  We can actually measure the speed at which the plates that were once all part of Pangea are moving away from each other.  And of course all that evidence I mentioned clearly shows it is a fact. 

I offered to show you.   If you think you'd rather not see it, I'd be pleased to show anyone else who might be interested.

The plates moving can be seen.  The trillions of years you claim they have been moving, is the problem.  There is no evidence of that. 

[Sparks]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No. That's wrong.  We can actually measure the speed at which the plates that were once all part of Pangea are moving away from each other.  And of course all that evidence I mentioned clearly shows it is a fact. 

I offered to show you.   If you think you'd rather not see it, I'd be pleased to show anyone else who might be interested.

The plates moving can be seen.  The trillions of years you claim they have been moving, is the problem.  There is no evidence of that. 

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Hmm... you claimed "day" meant a literal 24-hour day in the Creation account.   Have you changed your mind now?

You really have no understanding at all, do you?

I can listen to rock music as I rock the baby and stare at a rock formation outside the window.  Did I change the definition of rock, or does the word mean different things in different contexts?  The English has these things called "prepositions."  In and on are actually entirely different words with entirely different meanings.  Conversely, "in the days" and "on the day" also have entirely different meanings.  

Maybe one day you'll actually open a Bible and read it, rather than relying on old arguments from atheist websites.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

BTW, what makes you think I'm a college graduate.  

You pretend to be educated, but if not, it explains why you're wrong about almost everything you post.  Your rejection of the Bible in favor of the lie of evolution shows us all where your faith lies.

[The Barbarian]

Hmm... you claimed "day" meant a literal 24-hour day in the Creation account.   Have you changed your mind now?

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

"In the day" is a somewhat informal way of referring to past times. Like, "In the days of the French Revolution ..." Or when an older person is talking about his youth, he might say "Yes, back in the day, we used to ..." It can also be used, like "during the day", to contrast with night. Like, "In the day the spotted fwacbar bird sleeps, and it hunts at night."

Ah, so "day" is literal in Genesis, unless it contradicts your new beliefs, and then it isn't literal.  Got it.

I can listen to rock music as I rock the baby and stare at a rock formation outside the window.  Did I change the definition of rock, or does the word mean different things in different contexts?

So you can change the meaning as you go... we get it.

Maybe one day you'll actually open a Bible and read it,

You seem pretty unhappy that I knew that the Bible has two different versions of what"day" those things happen.   If you actually spent some time reading the Bible instead of copying from creationist sites, this wouldn't have happened to you.

BTW, what makes you think I'm a college graduate.  

You pretend to be educated

Seems like your imagination seems to be running overtime again.   I don't remember telling anyone about my formal education.   But feel free to go back and look and see if I mentioned anything.

Your rejection of the Bible in favor of the false doctrine of YE creationism shows us all where your faith lies.

Edited June 10, 2024 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

The plates moving can be seen.

And their speed can be measured.   Which is just one way we know.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

The trillions of years you claim they have been moving, is the problem. 

Trillions?   Maybe you need to go look things up again...

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

There is no evidence of that. 

It's more than just the way that things like fossil fields, mountains, and so on match up when we put it all back together.    You see, at the mid-oceanic ridges, the crust itself leaves a record of the time that it's been moving...

Want to learn how we have this record of Pangea's breakup?

 

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Ah, so "day" is literal in Genesis, unless it contradicts your new beliefs, and then it isn't literal. 

Perhaps what you need is a good attorney so you can sue your high school for malpractice.  You obviously were never taught to read properly.  It's either that or you are COMPLETELY dishonest.  Nearly all words can have different meanings depending on how they are placed in a sentence and with the words around them.  This is called context.  For example, when your psychiatrist tells you to lie on the couch he doesn't mean that you should say untruthful things.  Lying on the couch is not the same kind of lying as what you do when you call traditional interpretations of Genesis "new beliefs."

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So you can change the meaning as you go

The meaning of a word is absolutely impacted by the words around them.  Most of us learn this by the seventh grade.  Is your defense at the Great White Throne of Judgment going to be that you just couldn't figure it out? 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You seem pretty unhappy that I knew that the Bible has two different versions of what"day" those things happen.

I am rather incredulous that you would use stupidity and ignorance of the English language as an argument for an untenable position. 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't remember telling anyone about my formal education.

In one of your posts you mentioned working in the field of biology, but then, that COULD mean that you water the plants at Walmart.  Certainly, much of what you claim to be factual is, in fact, nonsense.

 

[The Barbarian]

21 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

"In the day" is a somewhat informal way of referring to past times. Like, "In the days of the French Revolution ..." Or when an older person is talking about his youth, he might say "Yes, back in the day, we used to ..." It can also be used, like "during the day", to contrast with night. Like, "In the day the spotted fwacbar bird sleeps, and it hunts at night."

Ah, so "day" is literal in Genesis, unless it contradicts your new beliefs, and then it isn't literal. 

43 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps what you need is a good attorney so you can sue your high school for malpractice. 

Calm yourself, and try to find a cogent answer.

45 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nearly all words can have different meanings depending on how they are placed in a sentence and with the words around them.  This is called context.

When you want that to be so.   It's literal only when you want it to be.  Now, you dismiss the same thing in the Creation story as figurative, because you've just realized that the two different accounts, taken as literal narrative, contradict each other.

There's a simple and honest way to deal with it; admit they are both figurative. 

47 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

This is called context.  For example, when your psychiatrist tells you to lie on the couch he doesn't mean that you should say untruthful things.

But you want this to be true for Genesis 2, but don't want it to be true of Genesis 1.   We get it.    So you change the meaning as you go.

49 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Is your defense at the Great White Throne of Judgment going to be that you just couldn't figure it out? 

You aren't God, and you don't speak for Him.  And He's not a big buddy who will beat up people who embarrass you.   Have a little humility here.

51 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

In one of your posts you mentioned working in the field of biology, but then, that COULD mean that you water the plants at Walmart.  Certainly, much of what you claim to be factual is, in fact, nonsense.

I don't remember telling anyone about my formal education.

51 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

In one of your posts you mentioned working in the field of biology, but then, that COULD mean that you water the plants at Walmart. 

On a message board, one only has what one knows to discuss things intelligently.   Guess how I know you don't have degrees in biology or Christian theology.

 

-

[Sparks]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And their speed can be measured.   Which is just one way we know.

Trillions?   Maybe you need to go look things up again...

It's more than just the way that things like fossil fields, mountains, and so on match up when we put it all back together.    You see, at the mid-oceanic ridges, the crust itself leaves a record of the time that it's been moving...

Want to learn how we have this record of Pangea's breakup?

 

Yes, you have all the pretty pictures of the theory.  It's just that theories are theories, and not fact.  You should probably accept the fact that the theory can be wrong.

Plates Moving = Actual Science.  Can be observed and tested.

Plates moving for trillions of years = Not science.  Opinion.  Cannot be observed, or proven.

The idea of Pangaea comes from two theories, neither of which have been can be shown.  The assumption that the earth is very old, and the assumption that the observed science has been going on for trillions of years. 

* I say trillions of years, because why not?  It's just as bogus as billions of years, neither of which can be proven.