Plate Tectonics?

Yeah, Pangea is extremely important for the history of earth for a number of reasons. If anyone else starts doubting it I'll type up more evidence, but for right now land fossils hanging out oceans away from each other where the continents used to touch is pretty good.

Yeah, Pangea is extremely important for the history of earth for a number of reasons. If anyone else starts doubting it I'll type up more evidence, but for right now land fossils hanging out oceans away from each other where the continents used to touch is pretty good.

Well, a brief list would include:
Fossil evidence, both land and sea,
The Rock Record (sedimentary, some metamorphism, and igneous/volcanism),
Visible evidence of rifting (which broke up Pangea)
Possible climatic and environmental effects preserved in the rock record,
Observed movement of the plates,
etc...


However, as stated previously, plate tectonics would be possible on a FE, but not in the patterns we see on a RE.

If you take areas where plates are separating and move them back together, and do the opposite with areas where plates are meeting, you get one big landmass.  The continents even fit together!

That's a pretty abysmal induction. If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock? (I wouldn't. You might, I don't know, but the point is, most people wouldn't, because what kind of an argument is that?)

Also, there exists fossil evidence that the continents were once joined--the fossilized remnants of the same types of animals on two separate continents.  An ocean crossing would be impossible for for these creatures. (No Dinosaur-Pirates)

I challenge you to demonstrate, or at least explain why an ocean crossing would be impossible for these creatures. I very strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

Quote from: Ejak2021 on December 21, 2009, 11:00:55 AM

If you take areas where plates are separating and move them back together, and do the opposite with areas where plates are meeting, you get one big landmass.  The continents even fit together!

That's a pretty abysmal induction. If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock? (I wouldn't. You might, I don't know, but the point is, most people wouldn't, because what kind of an argument is that?)

Quote from: Ejak2021 on December 21, 2009, 11:00:55 AM

Also, there exists fossil evidence that the continents were once joined--the fossilized remnants of the same types of animals on two separate continents.  An ocean crossing would be impossible for for these creatures. (No Dinosaur-Pirates)

I challenge you to demonstrate, or at least explain why an ocean crossing would be impossible for these creatures. I very strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

Oh boy, somebody's debating Pangaea. Here are a couple brief reasons why Pangaea is indisputable fact:

The magnetic poles move and swap every once in a while. When lava cools, there are little magnetic bits that get stuck aligned with the current magnetic field. Thus, if we know what the magnetic poles were doing and when a rock was formed, we can know what direction in was facing when it was created. Cool, huh? Magnetic records from Pangaea era agree perfectly with the idea that all continents were once joined. This is basic geology, you will find that any respectable source will agree with this. My source was my college geology textbook, which I don't have anymore.

Ice carves though rock when water gets inside and freezes. This makes very distinctive parts and shows where the continent got cold enough for this to happen. There are places where ice has carved through rock where water would never get that cold. The markings invariably agree with where we believe the continent was at the time the rock was carved.

Fossils have already been mentioned. We're talking identical species being oceans apart. Not just one or two skeletons- it's as if the same exact dinosaur lived in an area that covers two coastlines. Sure, it's possible that one or two dinosaurs floated across the ocean and landed (already dead), but they would not have then started reproducing- and even if they did, we would see differences, because separated sects of the same animal in very different climates would evolve differently.

Strangely enough, if we reverse the movements of the continents observed today, we see that they would eventually collide. Funny, that.

The continents fit together like puzzle pieces. You say "If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock?" Well, the difference is, continents are made of the same materials, and we don't have any evidence saying they DIDN'T come from the same chunk. If I found a bunch of ceramic shards on my floor, and they fit together to make a bowl, it would be reasonable to assume that they were once a bowl before my cat knocked it over.

That's a pretty abysmal induction. If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock?

That is quite a good hypothesis for why most of what you post doesnt make sense. Rocks arent known for their intellectual prowess.
Its less far fetched than your boat o' dinosaurs crap.

That's a pretty abysmal induction. If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock? (I wouldn't. You might, I don't know, but the point is, most people wouldn't, because what kind of an argument is that?)

Maybe, if your face was made of rock with a similar structure and composition, and there was evidence that rock was missing from the formation.

I challenge you to demonstrate, or at least explain why an ocean crossing would be impossible for these creatures. I very strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

I know you aren't being serious right now, especially because of the underlined.  But, if you really want people to believe in dinosaur-pirates, you'll have to provide evidence.

The magnetic poles move and swap every once in a while. When lava cools, there are little magnetic bits that get stuck aligned with the current magnetic field. Thus, if we know what the magnetic poles were doing and when a rock was formed, we can know what direction in was facing when it was created. Cool, huh? Magnetic records from Pangaea era agree perfectly with the idea that all continents were once joined. This is basic geology, you will find that any respectable source will agree with this. My source was my college geology textbook, which I don't have anymore.

Sounds like a fairytale to me. Do you believe everything the government tells you? Do you know who authorizes the school curriculum?

Ice carves though rock when water gets inside and freezes. This makes very distinctive parts and shows where the continent got cold enough for this to happen. There are places where ice has carved through rock where water would never get that cold. The markings invariably agree with where we believe the continent was at the time the rock was carved.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. You seem to have a number of trivially true premises supporting an absurd conclusion:

Ice carves through rock when water gets inside and freezes. Sounds good.
This phenomenon leaves distinctive traces. Right you are.
There are places() where ice has carved through rock but which presently are not cold I agree, but you could be more specific.
______________
The continents are all floating around wildly churning dinosaur fossils all over the place. It's this bit I'm having trouble with.

Fossils have already been mentioned. We're talking identical species being oceans apart. Not just one or two skeletons- it's as if the same exact dinosaur lived in an area that covers two coastlines. Sure, it's possible that one or two dinosaurs floated across the ocean and landed (already dead), but they would not have then started reproducing- and even if they did, we would see differences, because separated sects of the same animal in very different climates would evolve differently.

I'm saying they floated across alive, and that's also what the rest of the mainstream non-globularist scientific community seems to be saying. I asked you to demonstrate that it was, in your own words, "impossible for these creatures" to have made such a journey, which was the claim you made in the message I replied to. I'm not disputing that hundreds of similar species have lived on two seperate continents simultaneously, you'd have to be crazy to deny that. What I'm asking you to show to me is why that is a reason to suspect that the continents were once mushed together in a giant lump. Humans somehow populated Australia in prehistory, but nobody's suggesting that they walked.

Maybe, if your face was made of rock with a similar structure and composition, and there was evidence that rock was missing from the formation.

But my face is not made of rock.
Therefore I have no reason to suspect that I was born out of a rock.
QED.

Quote

I challenge you to demonstrate, or at least explain why an ocean crossing would be impossible for these creatures. I very strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

I know you aren't being serious right now, especially because of the underlined.  But, if you really want people to believe in dinosaur-pirates, you'll have to provide evidence.

I think it's pretty immature to doubt my sincerity, my theory is widely accepted in the non-globular scientific community, and is backed up by pages of careful research and abundant fossil evidence. Your claims are outlandish.

Sounds like a fairytale to me. Do you believe everything the government tells you? Do you know who authorizes the school curriculum?

My teacher had worked in the geology field for years; he was not in any way disconnected with geological fact. Unless ALL geologists are also conspirators, you're wrong.

Every one of my points about Pangaea are backed with enormous amounts of Geological evidence. Just saying "no" doesn't disprove anything. Either the entire field of geology is wrong, or you are. I know where my money is.

James, the school curriculum has nothing to do with all the Geology textbooks where all this info can be found.  I myself am studying geology, and a couple of lecturers have contributed to books and countless journals/reports.  A few to look up are Martin Smith, Rory Mortimore, and maybe Norman Moles.

We know the poles switch, it can be detected on the sea floor, and observed in Banded Iron Formations.  (first detected in submarine warfare, WW1 or 2, my memory fails me on that point)
The actual cause is only hypothesised, cos we've never seen it happen (although it's thought that we may be in the early stages of it now.  Lord knows, we're well overdue for it!)

The dino-pirate lark has been worn out in a previous thread, so lets not get into that here.


James - do some research on Pangea and the geologic principles behind it, and then come back.  Specifically, look for the Wilson Cycle/ J. Tuzu Wilson Cycle.  It's actually the premise for most of continental drift, is observable (in small amounts - sea floor spreading, subduction and rifting).

But my face is not made of rock.
Therefore I have no reason to suspect that I was born out of a rock.
QED.

This is a non sequitor, so I'll just leave it at that.

I think it's pretty immature to doubt my sincerity, my theory is widely accepted in the non-globular scientific community, and is backed up by pages of careful research and abundant fossil evidence. Your claims are outlandish.

1) Non-globular scientific community is an oxymoron.
2) "Pages of careful research" isn't very impressive.  Basically, it's a college essay paper.
3) How does the "abundant fossil evidence" in any way support your claims?

Quote from: Ejak2021 on December 21, 2009, 11:00:55 AM

If you take areas where plates are separating and move them back together, and do the opposite with areas where plates are meeting, you get one big landmass.  The continents even fit together!

That's a pretty abysmal induction. If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock? (I wouldn't. You might, I don't know, but the point is, most people wouldn't, because what kind of an argument is that?)

Says the guy that posts this crap:



Obviously if you can superimpose the devil on the Lockheed Martin star, Lockheed Martin is a Satan-worshipping company

Please keep all threads on topic. Consider this a warning. Thanks!

Please keep all threads on topic. Consider this a warning. Thanks!

</running away like a little bitch>

Please keep all threads on topic. Consider this a warning. Thanks!

I was just pointing out that you have used the exact same argument that you said most people would agree is a terrible, terrible argument.

In this context, I agree that it's not a good argument for plate tectonics, I just found your statement ironic.

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 01:20:54 PM

Please keep all threads on topic. Consider this a warning. Thanks!

</running away like a little bitch>

<Getting banned like an idiot!>

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 01:20:54 PM

Please keep all threads on topic. Consider this a warning. Thanks!

I was just pointing out that you have used the exact same argument that you said most people would agree is a terrible, terrible argument.

In this context, I agree that it's not a good argument for plate tectonics, I just found your statement ironic.

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 01:20:54 PM

Please keep all threads on topic. Consider this a warning. Thanks!

I was just pointing out that you have used the exact same argument that you said most people would agree is a terrible, terrible argument.

In this context, I agree that it's not a good argument for plate tectonics, I just found your statement ironic.

Sure, no worries, but try and keep everything within the context of each thread. Pentagrams have nothing to do with Pangea.

There wouldn't be issues with it if you remove Antarctica from Pangea, or you follow a FET that has Antarctica as a continent and a separate ice wall.

There wouldn't be issues with it if you remove Antarctica from Pangea, or you follow a FET that has Antarctica as a continent and a separate ice wall.

The Earth would disintegrate into several smaller planets if it was really a bunch of grinding floating plates.

Quote from: SupahLovah on December 22, 2009, 08:51:27 PM

There wouldn't be issues with it if you remove Antarctica from Pangea, or you follow a FET that has Antarctica as a continent and a separate ice wall.

The Earth would disintegrate into several smaller planets if it was really a bunch of grinding floating plates.

Even on a FE, those plates would only be in the crust and upper mantle.  There's be plenty more solid earth to hold it together.

Internal explosions was an answer but internal to what?  And what would prevent lava in volcanoes to exist at all.  If you put a burning ball on a wood floor it's going to burn through it, so with the flat earth concept lava should technically fall downwards through space. 

The distribution of the continents is possible only for FET.

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.


BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.

I believe that there are continental plates.

However, I do not believe that they move in the motions predicted by the Round Earth model.

Do you think they might be the cause of the ebbing and flow of the oceans?

It doesn't have a proper explanation. Some sectors of the flat community try to get round it by saying plate tectonics is a myth and evidence for it is due to things like dinosaurs building boats and migrating to different countries with livestock. I'm not kidding.
[/quote]

Plate tectonics can occur without a spereical earth. Why would you be asking about plate tectonics. You should ask a question about something that can only exist with the existence of a ball shaped planet like gravity or the atmosphere.