Congratulations for providing a web link which makes the same unfounded assertion as your last post. How does it support your case exactly?
Good for you for not reading the site! If you actually clicked on the link you'd see it provided a whole heap of info about matching plants and stuff from Northern Africa and South America.
We've covered plants, the conjectural notion that they migrated across land bridges presupposes the continental drift theory. It is far more likely that they were transported as crops by sentient animals, or carried across the oceans as matted clumps of detrius (these two modes of transmission occur regularly in the present day).
Other than that, just suggesting that because certain coastlines have some sort of rough resemblance they used to be joined is very fallacious. If I found a concavity in a tree trunk which it happened I could fit my face into, would it be reasonable to suspect that I was born out of a tree? The answer is no.
Congratulations for providing a web link which makes the same unfounded assertion as your last post. How does it support your case exactly?
Copy paste time. Here's why plate tectonics exists and why you are a fool for thinking otherwise:
Magnetic systems...How do you propose the rocks became magnetic if they did not originate from the mantle? And according to what you said, the rocks should have one constant magnetic pattern, not different ones showing the reversal of the poles. Plus when dated, the rocks the same distance either side of the trench have the same magnetic readings and age? Surely not just a coincidence.
You didn't answer the question. How come destructive boundaries have the constant pattern of deep and powerful earth quakes, whereas conservative boundaries always have shallow and weaker earth quakes?
Plus evidence for the network system. Just because you claim it doesn't make it so.
Pure science fantasy? Then explain the rock formations in Africa and South America. The bedrock is a perfect match - not similar. As in it's like a jigsaw. The continents look like they could fit and the geology suggests that they once did fit, unless it's pure coincidence that they just seem to have joining bands of rock if they were put together.
They do originate from the mantle, and that is precisely how they become magnetic, I'm not sure how you've construed me as suggesting otherwise. What the rocks show is magnetic variation, the "reversal of the poles" (an absurd impossibility) is merely a false extrapolation from raw data. Nothing in what I have suggested indicates that rocks coming out of the ground should have the same magnetic patterns. Since the magnetic interactions of the Earth's iron core, the celestial bodies and the paleo-magnetic systems of Hell are variable, it's hardly surprising that magnetic patterns vary substantially over time.
There stood a hill not far whose grisly top
Belched fire and rolling smoke; the rest entire
Shone with a glossy scurf, undoubted sign
That in his womb was hid metallic ore,
The work of sulphur.
Hell is heavily laden with magnetic iron, and since the paleo-magnetic systems of Hell (Which partly contains the Earth's mantle) are constantly subject to change, so the rocks which come out of Hell during different periods of history have different properties.
[...] Let none admire
That riches [i.e., precious metals] grow in hell; that soil may best
Deserve the precious bane.
The intensities of earthquakes are likewise determined by paleo-volcanic subterranean movements. Along certain veins of the Earth's surface, there is more volcanic activity because of rifts and instabilities in the surface. There is nothing remarkable about this fact, and certainly nothing to suggest that the continents are zipping around all over the ocean floor.
I'm not "just claiming" the network of magma chambers, vaults and tunnels which honeycombs underneath the surface of the Earth. This belief has been correctly held by more or less every scientifically-inclined civilization in human history, and is even held by modern globularists. I'm not sure why you would set yourself up against this widely believed claim when there is no reason to suspect otherwise.
As I think I've already made plain, arguments to the tune of "it's like a jigsaw!" are gravely misguided wishful thinking. Such fallacy-ridden inductions are doomed to fail under the harsh scrutiny of proper scientific enquiry. I can fit my leg inside the mouth of a crocodile, but I can also assure you that my leg and the mouth are entirely dissimilar in origin and in essence.