A Serious Question: Pangea

Originally posted by frogstomp
nah , I just kept forgeting I had written it.

Sorry, frogs, I forgot to mail your meds again, didn't I?

Originally posted by David C
Sorry, frogs, I forgot to mail your meds again, didn't I?

I forgot.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It doesn't take a huge jump in imagination to see life on earth
could not survive continents crashing into each other in a matter of
weeks, you read a crank book and then jump to the conclusion he
must be right since it matches my own conceptions of the creation.

The upwelling data is a matter of record, just look it up. There has
been small variat ...[text shortened]... e it or not, but maybe this is in the
same catagory of the moon landing hoaxes? Big conspiracy?

It doesn't take a huge jump in imagination to see life on earth
could not survive continents crashing into each other in a matter of
weeks, you read a crank book and then jump to the conclusion he
must be right since it matches my own conceptions of the creation.

Great, so because you imagine it to work that way, it's a given fact. Give me a break. You gonna have to come up with more substance than that to disprove anything. What if some guy who's simulated this on supercomputers says otherwise. I'll wager he's used more that his imagination. I find it a little presumptious to call something a
"crank", just because it doesn't fit your assumptions and ideas. Btw, I find it hard to discuss this topic civily with you as you seem to heap the one assumption upon the other, calling it conclusive evidence and then just spicing it up with ad hominems for good measure.

The upwelling data is a matter of record, just look it up. There has
been small variations but very small of the change in upwelling
patterns over millions of years written in the residual magnetic
field of the magma when it cools off.

I'm not disputing the upwelling. I think I emphasised this before... This second sentence is an assumption. The current rate of upwelling is measured, together with the current rate of electromagnetic fluctuation and it is assumed that this rate has always been the same. The past is not conclusively falsifiable.

Of course that kind of data goes against your pre-conceived notions
of how it all happened so don't worry about it, just keep your own head
stuck up the sand of your life.

argumentum ad hominem circumstantial

If you want you can look at this link, it might open your eyes.
http://courses.unt.edu/hwilliams/GEOG_1710/science.htm

Allow me to quote from your link:

The correct hypothesis (or combination of hypotheses?) is uncertain because it is difficult to test explanations that involve processes occurring hundreds of miles below the earth's surface, operating over millions of years. As our ability to observe, measure or model these processes improves (i.e. due to technological advances) a clearer picture of what drives plate motion should emerge.

This is far from exact laboratory science, my friend. Observations are taken and fitted to hypothesese. These hypothesese change in the light of new evidence. You haven't proven anything conclusively.

the record of magnetic field reversals is very clear. The earth
swaps north and south at very irregular intervals of about 200,000
years or so.

Irregular intervals of 200,000 years? How's that for an oxymoron? Once again, this is an assumption. The observable science is that the strength of the magnetic field of the earth is decreasing and that there seem to be magnetic reversals recorded into magentic rock. This decrease in the magnetic field is then assumed to be part of a greater fluctuation of increase and decrease, combined with polar reversals. The current rate of tectonic movement, combined with the rate of magnetic fluctuation is just extrapolated backwards using the old earth model. This is no conclusive proof.

but maybe this is in the same catagory of the moon landing hoaxes? Big conspiracy?

No, this is in the same category as current observable science applied to the old earth model. We are comparing apples and oranges here. My frame of reference using the young earth model is entirely different. It might suprise you that I'm not as suspicious of science as your prejudice of me has lead you to believe.

Originally posted by David C
Given that context, why should we choose to take the xtian bible as the true depiction of these events, rather than, say...the Hopi indian version? Or the Mayans? Or the Greek pantheon? With your logic, the xtian recount of these (alleged) events is just another retelling with a different backdrop.

This should be a discussion on its own, but the plagarization crap should be discarded - unless some magical new proof appears (like Moses' fossil clutching the Enuma Elish or the like).

Originally posted by frogstomp
I forgot.

... now these are side-effects Viagra has not yet listed. Frog, you could have a lucrative lawsuit on your hands 😉

Originally posted by RatX
This should be a discussion on its own, but the plagarization crap should be discarded - unless some magical new proof appears (like Moses' fossil clutching the Enuma Elish or the like).

Yet another fallacy--argumentum ad ignorantiam (just because something is not known to be true does not make it false). This forum seems over run with them.

Originally posted by RatX
This should be a discussion on its own, but the plagarization crap should be discarded - unless some magical new proof appears (like Moses' fossil clutching the Enuma Elish or the like).

You cannot make the fact that Abram was born in Ur and his father was a Polytheist go away. Neither can you make the archeological record disappear.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]It doesn't take a huge jump in imagination to see life on earth
could not survive continents crashing into each other in a matter of
weeks, you read a crank book and then jump to the conclusion he
must be right since it matches my own conceptions of the creation.

Great, so because you imagine it to work that way, it's a given fact. Give me a ...[text shortened]... rise you that I'm not as suspicious of science as your prejudice of me has lead you to believe.[/b]

The quote about things being inexact were talking about trying to
picture what is taking place hundreds of miles underground.
The magnetic data is surface data, much better understood than
the deep upwelling. You want to find fault with it so by george, there's
a weakness we acknowledge, so you go AHA I knew it was all BS.
The magnetic data is very clear and precise. The intervals of the
earths' magnetic field reversals are seen quite clearly and its a very
dynamic system, you can't expect hundreds of miles or runny magma
under incredible forces of heat and convection to run like a friggin
clock! For one thing, the heat of the inside of the earth tends to run
down, there was more heat available a thousand miles deep a billion
years ago than there is now so every decade and millennia it gets a
tiny bit more sluggish. Another thing that happens deep underground
is the presence of nuclear reactions. When U238 and other isotopes
get concentrated by the magma convections, there are reactions
that are like in a nuclear reactor, releasing incredible amounts of
energy at irregular intervals also. I guess you would poo-poo the
idea of nuclear reactions underground but hey, thats your mental
makeup, you have you mind made up on a young earth and so,
by god, because you say it is so, BOING, its all of a sudden 8,000
years old. You should take your head out of the sand and really
look at the evidence, and not try to justify your own preconcieved
ideas by finding fault with valid ongoing geological research.
Remember those guys get challanged on a daily basis and their
research has to convince very sceptical scientists who have their own
ax to grind so its a dog eat dog world in science and its in its own way
evolutionary, only the fittest theory survives, or the old farts die off.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I am surprised by this post, to tell the truth. I start reading and immediately come across the statement "there is too much dogma at stake." Here's what Meriam-Webster has to say about dogma:

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put f ...[text shortened]... pletely unfounded argument God is going to feel distain for his creation no matter what.

I am awed by your inherent understanding of the mind of god.
That is a gift not many of us have.

Originally posted by frogstomp
search for the Enuma Elish and read the 5th Tablet

Hey, thanks for the link, its incredible what they were able to put
on tablets with that primitive cuniform system, the stories are anything
but primitive. I started on the first tablet, this comp doesn't have
a printer hooked up to it, too lazy to make all the files swappable🙂
so when my wife gets off her comp (she gets all the good stuff)
I want to print the whole thing and chew on it. So they were
pantheists to start, and they created more gods but didn't like
how they were having too much fun and playing their CD players
way too loud, dancing around I bet.
Interesting, from the beginning, it implies gods looked like
humans. But I just started. Interesting stuff. Too bad you can't see
the egyptian creation myth, its allmost exactly the same as
the genisis version but of course a lot older. The babylonian
genesis seems to be only a few hundred years older than the bible
according to the author, 12th Century BC. As far as I know the
Egyptian version is several thousand years older than the babylonians.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I am awed by your inherent understanding of the mind of god.
That is a gift not many of us have.

I assume that this statement is laced with sarcasm, so I accuse you of another fallacy, that of distraction. Or, this could actually be labeled as a straw man (see the straw man post for a detailed definition and discussion). I said nothing of the mind of God or knowing the mind of God, something that no one should profess any knowledge of, even though so many do anyway. I only stated, perhaps not simply enough, that perfection need not be repaired. If the creation of God needed to be repaired, that would imply that the creation of God was not perfect. As God Himself is perfect by definition, that would leave us with a perfect being creating something imperfect. This is of course a contradiction. If you see any flaws in this argument please point out the specifics, and stop trying to defeat my reasoning through changing my arguments into something you can attack. It's childish and it won't work on me anyway so either way you look bad.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I assume that this statement is laced with sarcasm, so I accuse you of another fallacy, that of distraction. Or, this could actually be labeled as a straw man (see the straw man post for a detailed definition and discussion). I said nothing of the mind of God or knowing the mind of God, something that no one should profess any knowledge of, even though ...[text shortened]... hing you can attack. It's childish and it won't work on me anyway so either way you look bad.

You simply state attributes that we as humans assume any decent
god would have. All you have are assumptions, all you can ever have
are assumptions untill such a god makes its presence known and
speaks to every human on earth at the same time with the same
message in whatever language each human can understand.
Untill such a time comes all you can do is speculate, put what you
hope to be true, the words or deeds or attributes of god.
My biggest problem with religion in general is with 6 billion people on
earth now, there are way too many directly antagonistic and conflicting
versions of what people assume to be coming from 'god'.
You have the Janes (sp?) to whom god spoke saying it is evil to kill
anything. Then you have Christians and Muslims being told also
by 'god' you have an obligation to kill those who disbelieve, with
results like the inquisition, the crusades, the Jihads. So with all these
diametrically opposed views supposedly coming from 'god'
THEY CAN"T ALL BE RIGHT. So you look at the Christian version
and of course Christians will swear up and down on a stack of
bibles only THEIR religion is the true one. But of course all you have
to do is look to the Muslims, and they will go NAY, May you die a
thousand deaths if you don't worship OUR god.
So out of all the thousands of religions going on now and many
thousands dead and gone 100,000 years in the past, each one
with differant creation myths, taboos, rules of life, rites of passage,
all coming from god, most 180 degrees opposed to one another,
Then Christianity gets a bit thinned out and therefore not trustworthy.
The same with Islam, and all the other ancient and present gods.
A true god would say the same thing to everyone, not tell one set of
people, hey, its ok to kill your enemies, ESPECIALLY if they don't
beleive in me, then tell another people, don't kill ANYTHING if you can
help it, not even flies, they are all sacred in my eyes.
How can anyone with half a mind ever take ANY of this stuff seriously?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You simply state attributes that we as humans assume any decent
god would have. All you have are assumptions, all you can ever have
are assumptions untill such a god makes its presence known and
speaks to every human on earth at the same time with the same
message in whatever language each human can understand.
Untill such a time comes all you can do ...[text shortened]... e all sacred in my eyes.
How can anyone with half a mind ever take ANY of this stuff seriously?

Hold on ... back up. All of the sudden I'm not sure where on different sides. What characteristics do you think I'm attributing to God, anyway? Could you quote me please?

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Hold on ... back up. All of the sudden I'm not sure where on different sides. What characteristics do you think I'm attributing to God, anyway? Could you quote me please?

God is supposed to be perfect--that is an inarguable definition. Therefore whatever he may create must also be perfect and do exactly what it is intended to do. Nothing can ever blow up in God's face unless that is exactly what it is supposed to do. So by your completely unfounded argument God is going to feel distain for his creation no matter what.

By that you are defining god in whatever light you want to cast it in.
Whatever we define as being god-like may or may not have anything
to do with reality. So to say that is an inarguable definition, hey I
just argued it. How can you or any other human know
if god is "by definition perfect"?
Because you pronounce it such, therefore it is true?
Come on Mr Logic, tell me what logic rule THAT violates.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The quote about things being inexact were talking about trying to
picture what is taking place hundreds of miles underground.
The magnetic data is surface data, much better understood than
the deep upwelling. You want to find fault with it so by george, there's
a weakness we acknowledge, so you go AHA I knew it was all BS.
The magnetic data is very cl ...[text shortened]... nd its in its own way
evolutionary, only the fittest theory survives, or the old farts die off.

Yet another logical fallacy, sonhouse.

Here's how I understand your reasoning to go:

1. Current observable scientific data fit reasonably into the old earth model.
2. This follows reasonably from (1) that these observations cannot therefore reasonably fit into any other model.
3. This follows reasonably from (1) and (2) that the old earth model is the only one that is and can be correct.
4. This follows from (1), (2),(3) : I am right and you are wrong.
5. Follows from (4), Halitose is burying his 'ol head in the figurative sandpit.

I'm sure you don't need me to point out that (2) and (3) are assumptions. I've never denied that scientific observation doesn't fit into the old-earth model, I've only contended that they can reasonably fit into a young-earth model too. You seem to be arguing the wrong point. You can argue all you like how beautifully scientific observation fits your old earth model, but you'll be preaching to the choir. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll need to point out the flaws in my young-earth model.

You want to find fault with it so by george, there's
a weakness we acknowledge, so you go AHA I knew it was all BS.

argumentum ad hominem

The rest is speculation with no hard science to back it up...