tectonic plate Theory

[Guest Simian]

For those f you who think the earth is only 6000 years old..do you also deny tectonic plate theory?

We have rock hard(pardon the pun) evidence that all of the continents used to be one super continent

we also know the average movement of the continents

now using this data it can be shown with great accuracy that the earth MUST V at least 4 billion+ years old in order for these continents to have moved at the average rate..and to have once been one super continent

[Hunterpoet]

I bought a car once...an older model, previoulsy owned...I have no idea how fast it went before i bought it.

[~~ angelique ~~]

For those f you who think the earth is only 6000 years old..do you also deny tectonic plate theory?

We have rock hard(pardon the pun) evidence that all of the continents used to be one super continent

we also know the average movement of the continents

now using this data it can be shown with great accuracy that the earth MUST V at least 4 billion+ years old in order for these continents to have moved at the average rate..and to have once been one super continent

Actually, I just took a geology course in college that talked about the supercontinent. It's name is Pangea ( http://geology.com/pangea.htm ) There is a lot of scientific evidence to support the moving of the continents - just do the research.

I have no clue about the 6000 year thing but I do know the pangea theory is backuped up by the moving of the plates. We had to do tests in a Geography Mapping software that showed the amount of drift per year. It is actually measurable......

Sorry but I don't understand, why do poeple say the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Edited January 15, 2008 by ladyoflight

[Guest LadyC]

ya know, i gave my thoughts on how the 6000 years and 6 billion years or however many could actually NOT be contradictory in that other thread... i kinda thought it was sound logic. but not a single person acknowledged what i said, so i guess i won't waste my time in this one.

[Hunterpoet]

I bought a car once...an older model, previoulsy owned...I have no idea how fast it went before i bought it.

Nice analogy but not really the same thing. Is it your statement that you cannot tell the past from the evidence we see today???

You can tell some things about the past from evidence found today. However, there are too many variables to be able to say with a certainty how fast or slow something happened.

For example, I read a report recently that suggested the earth is spinning much slower now than 8 or 10 or 12,000 years ago. The report suggested that there was at one time an 18 hour day here on earth, and that it is constantly going slower.

If I walk into a field and see a 20 ft tree, how can I possibly know how fast it grew to 20 feet. I can tell you many things about the tree, the ground around it and possibly it's affect on things inches, feet and yards away, but I can't tell you how long it took, I can only surmise.

That is my point.

[Guest LadyC]

[For example, I read a report recently that suggested the earth is spinning much slower now than 8 or 10 or 12,000 years ago. The report suggested that there was at one time an 18 hour day here on earth, and that it is constantly going slower.

If I walk into a field and see a 20 ft tree, how can I possibly know how fast it grew to 20 feet. I can tell you many things about the tree, the ground around it and possibly it's affect on things inches, feet and yards away, but I can't tell you how long it took, I can only surmise.

That is my point.

Got a cite to that report about the spin rate of the earth?

My guess is that if you ask a botanist how quickly a particular species of plant can grow, given its location, they can give you a pretty good idea.

You can also take a boring of the tree and count the rings.

watch the science channel. there was a whole show on there a week or two ago giving plenty of evidence. i watched it. it was the basis of what i spoke of in that other thread that nobody seemed to acknowledge.

[sheya joie]

There's this:

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg;

for in his days was the earth divided

; and his brother's name was Joktan.

[Guest LadyC]

glad you asked and not me... i was afraid i'd look really clueless asking that question.

oh wait, i AM really clueless!

[sheya joie]

There's this:

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg;

for in his days was the earth divided

; and his brother's name was Joktan.

And that is supposed to mean, what?

That Peleg was named for a notable occurrence about the time of his birth - that the earth divided.

Does it mean the break-up of the super continent? That's my belief.

[Hunterpoet]

[For example, I read a report recently that suggested the earth is spinning much slower now than 8 or 10 or 12,000 years ago. The report suggested that there was at one time an 18 hour day here on earth, and that it is constantly going slower.

If I walk into a field and see a 20 ft tree, how can I possibly know how fast it grew to 20 feet. I can tell you many things about the tree, the ground around it and possibly it's affect on things inches, feet and yards away, but I can't tell you how long it took, I can only surmise.

That is my point.

Got a cite to that report about the spin rate of the earth?

My guess is that if you ask a botanist how quickly a particular species of plant can grow, given its location, they can give you a pretty good idea.

You can also take a boring of the tree and count the rings.

Well, you didn't like my other anaolgy, so I thought I'd try again...guess I was mistaken.

No I don't remember the site or if there is one....It was an article and I don't remember that much about where I saw it.......