dad2 Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 Just now, BeyondET said: Hmm so what, that easily explains how animals can move to other continents. The separation of continents with plants and people and animals on them does explain how they got where they are. Indeed. I can't think of anything else that does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondET Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 118 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,869 Content Per Day: 1.22 Reputation: 816 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/01/1968 Share Posted January 30, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, dad2 said: The separation of continents with plants and people and animals on them does explain how they got where they are. Indeed. I can't think of anything else that does! The only thing that makes a continents is water. If all the oceans was drained earth would be one big continent. Birds carry seeds the wind can too. You won't find coconut trees growing in Canada Edited January 30, 2023 by BeyondET Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondET Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 118 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,869 Content Per Day: 1.22 Reputation: 816 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/01/1968 Share Posted January 30, 2023 (edited) A few more supercontinents after pangea Rodinia and Pannotia Edited January 30, 2023 by BeyondET Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 9 minutes ago, BeyondET said: The only thing that makes a continents is water. If all the oceans was drained earth would be one big continent. The world had lots of water a century or so after the flood when Babel happened. That goes without saying. The dividing of the earth's land means that the continents were surrounded in water of course. 9 minutes ago, BeyondET said: Birds carry seeds the wind can too. You won't find coconut trees growing in Canada Not all birds travel to all continents. The continents that ended up further from the equator naturally would grow plant life according to climate. You do realize that in places like northern Canada they found remains of trees and creatures that live in tropical climes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 15 hours ago, The Barbarian said: I'm just showing you what God says. You don't seem to agree with Him on it. That's between you and God, not me. What God says is that those people of the earth in the time of Peleg were afraid of being scattered all over so they mass migrated. They did so moving east. (I assume from a coastal area where possibly some dividing had already started). They moved inland for safety and to avoid getting wafted around on land breaking up I assume. That did not work because we are told in the bible (twice in a row in chapter 11) that God scattered them all over the earth after the Babel incident. We are also told point blank that the earth was split in a certain time, the time Peleg lived. There is no better place in the bible to place a separation of the supercontinent. I see no reason to deny it other than someone trusting man and so called science over God. It is about as plain as the nose on your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 10 hours ago, BeyondET said: A few more supercontinents after pangea Rodinia and Pannotia 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 (edited) 16 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. 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. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. 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. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. I know you want to believe that, but the evidence shows otherwise. No point in denying it. 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. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. Already dashed that little belief collection to smithereens. In this post. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: You're just arguing that because you made up a new story, that has to be the truth. That's just... I raised some possibilities for discussion actually. Since they appear to be above your paygrade you try to avoid dealing with any details. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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." Interpreting evidence is the name of the game here. By science and anyone else looking at it. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. 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) 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: But as you just learned, slowing them down again would cause just as much heat. So that won't work, either. 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. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. 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. 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. 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! Edited January 30, 2023 by dad2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2023 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. 50 minutes ago, dad2 said: Checked against what? 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. 52 minutes ago, dad2 said: 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? Sorry, your unscriptural assumptions are completely without evidence. Why not just accept it God's way? 53 minutes ago, dad2 said: That time and threshold does NOT include any time in the former nature 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. 55 minutes ago, dad2 said: 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! 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. 56 minutes ago, dad2 said: So it should be good if Barbarian tries to tell us how the heat all got there. Mostly from radioactive decay. The physics of that heating is well-understood. Would you like to learn more about it? 58 minutes ago, dad2 said: No, we never even discussed how long the rapid move took etc. 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. 1 hour ago, dad2 said: 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. 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. 1 hour ago, dad2 said: Why would there be some 'discontinuity'? 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. 1 hour ago, dad2 said: 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! 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddyv Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.91 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2023 1 hour ago, dad2 said: Checked against what? Comparing dream dates with dream dates is not checking anything. We have non-radiometric dates for the eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii in AD79. Radiometric dating of the ash that buried the town confirmed this date. This is fact. I'm not even sure why you are posting in the Science and Faith forum. What you are describing, and apparently agree with, is that it is not scientific since you cannot propose testable predictions or generate a parsimonious explanation of the existing data. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted January 30, 2023 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 2 hours ago, teddyv said: We have non-radiometric dates for the eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii in AD79. Radiometric dating of the ash that buried the town confirmed this date. This is fact. 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. 2 hours ago, teddyv said: I'm not even sure why you are posting in the Science and Faith forum. What you are describing, and apparently agree with, is that it is not scientific since you cannot propose testable predictions or generate a parsimonious explanation of the existing data. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts