« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Pangaea

  • 64 Replies
  • 10499 Views
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« on: January 16, 2007, 08:42:21 PM »
What are the FE's look on Pangaea, and how fossil distribution is so?

no, they did not have technology equivalent to ours, we would have found it.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Pangaea
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2007, 09:56:28 PM »
Explain to me what's wrong with the Pangea theory on the flat Earth model and then I'll explain why it's not wrong.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

silvermoon

  • 101
Pangaea
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2007, 10:00:52 PM »
Antarctica was also a part of Pangaea
So, you need new evidence of it, not the Pangaea we know, because it has to look different when there were no Antarctica..
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Pangaea
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2007, 10:13:47 PM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
Antarctica was also a part of Pangaea
So, you need new evidence of it, not the Pangaea we know, because it has to look different when there were no Antarctica..


What fossils have been found on Antarctica? And why would it be all that different? The "map" we have of Pangaea now is basically a guess, especially because nobody even knows if it actually did exist or not (I'm not saying it didn't, but I'd like to see someone prove it). I don't need new evidence for anything.


~D-Draw
Logged
?

silvermoon

  • 101
Pangaea
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2007, 10:19:04 PM »


Do you have some autographs from this guards?? :lol:  :lol:
Dont tell me you are an FEer :lol:
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Pangaea
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2007, 10:32:59 PM »
^So...what does this have to do with the topic? I suppose if you want an answer: No.


But really, that was entirely unnecssary.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

silvermoon

  • 101
Pangaea
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2007, 10:54:03 PM »
Oh yeah!
This is necessarily. I want to see what have to say real FEers, not someone who makes fun , like you!
Do really exist FEers?
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 04:58:16 AM »
because to allow the landmasses to shift, so then would the ring on the outside. Also we can assume Antarctica futs due to its shape, which corresponds with it's Pangaeic position. It certainly was a part of it.


did it fall through a hole in the wall?
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Pangaea
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2007, 07:48:44 AM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
It certainly was a part of it.

So what you are saying is that you know for certain that Antarctica was a part of Pangaea, even while scientists still don't know for sure that Pangaea even existed?
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Pangaea
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2007, 08:10:39 AM »
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "RESOCR"
It certainly was a part of it.

So what you are saying is that you know for certain that Antarctica was a part of Pangaea, even while scientists still don't know for sure that Pangaea even existed, although it is highly suggested by the movement of the earth's plates and the evidence of there previous positions?


Moded.
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
What he said
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2007, 08:42:41 AM »
because the presence of Antarctica in the model influenced India and Africa, but especially Austrailia. What we have for a model that includes Antarctica, and what is shown by modern-day continents are both suggesting each other.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
?

Tom Bishop

Pangaea
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2007, 09:15:40 AM »
If the continent of Antarctica was fabricated by the Conspiracy, it's not too surprising that they would design it to fit into the Pangaea hypothesis.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Pangaea
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2007, 11:20:21 AM »
I suppose that they made up plate tectonics too.. but wait, according to someone else, that's what supports the Ice Wall... Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

Like I said, you FE's need to keep your stories straight.
Logged
*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Pangaea
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2007, 12:22:35 PM »
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
Like I said, you FE's need to keep your stories straight.

There are several different theories, just like with everything else in the world. Not all Flat Earthers agree with each other, and not all Round Earthers agree with each other.

And Tom Bishop made a very good point. As Antarctica was fabricated by the Government, along with Australia, so obviously they would have been designed to fit into Pangea.

And don't forget, none of you have actually seen an accurate map of the world, so you don't even know what the other continents look like either.
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2007, 12:24:46 PM »
so, you're saying the government engineered two continents (one of which I've been to) along with thousands of miles of habited coastline?
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Pangaea
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2007, 01:20:30 PM »
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
I suppose that they made up plate tectonics too.. but wait, according to someone else, that's what supports the Ice Wall... Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

Like I said, you FE's need to keep your stories straight.


Tom is a troll, and a douche. As for the existence of Antarctica in Pangaea, claiming that it proves anything for RE is like claiming that since we estimate that the conspiracy was started by a man named Alfred Rumplestiltsken that it proves the conspiracy right as a whole.

Not to mention, even if Antarctica WAS part of Pangaea, why couldn't some pieces of it drifted out to the sides of the ice wall and got stuck there?

~D-Draw
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2007, 01:23:06 PM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
I suppose that they made up plate tectonics too.. but wait, according to someone else, that's what supports the Ice Wall... Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

Like I said, you FE's need to keep your stories straight.


Tom is a troll, and a douche. As for the existence of Antarctica in Pangaea, claiming that it proves anything for RE is like claiming that since we estimate that the conspiracy was started by a man named Alfred Rumplestiltsken that it proves the conspiracy right as a whole.

Not to mention, even if Antarctica WAS part of Pangaea, why couldn't some pieces of it drifted out to the sides of the ice wall and got stuck there?

~D-Draw


because that would create detectable fault lines, and earthquakes from that area. Or it would have to subduct an entire continent, which doesn't happen, because being the edge there is nowhere for the material to go.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
?

me

  • 62
Pangaea
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2007, 01:36:12 PM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
I suppose that they made up plate tectonics too.. but wait, according to someone else, that's what supports the Ice Wall... Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

Like I said, you FE's need to keep your stories straight.


Tom is a troll, and a douche. As for the existence of Antarctica in Pangaea, claiming that it proves anything for RE is like claiming that since we estimate that the conspiracy was started by a man named Alfred Rumplestiltsken that it proves the conspiracy right as a whole.

~D-Draw


Not quite, there is evidence that highly suggests the existence of Antarctica in Pangaea, where there is nothing to suggest the existence of "the conspiracy"
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Pangaea
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2007, 02:00:21 PM »
Quote from: "me"
Not quite, there is evidence that highly suggests the existence of Antarctica in Pangaea, where there is nothing to suggest the existence of "the conspiracy"


But yet both are nothing more than mere suggestions.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2007, 02:02:42 PM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "me"
Not quite, there is evidence that highly suggests the existence of Antarctica in Pangaea, where there is nothing to suggest the existence of "the conspiracy"


But yet both are nothing more than mere suggestions.

~D-Draw

false, Pangaea is a provable and scientifically backed THEORY supported by almost every scientist alive today.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
?

me

  • 62
Pangaea
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2007, 02:46:26 PM »
There is proof of continental drift (it's the reason why the himalayas are constantly getting bigger) and you can use the current drift pattern to work out where plates are moving from (i think)
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2007, 03:02:07 PM »
the continents move anywhere from 4 to 10 centimeters per year.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Pangaea
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2007, 05:03:27 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
false, Pangaea is a provable and scientifically backed THEORY supported by almost every scientist alive today.


Provable by what means? The dispersion of fossils? We still can hardly say that we know that Pangaea existed, and assumptions based on shapes of the prehistoric (get it? before historical record) continent are even more presumptuous.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2007, 05:21:01 PM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "RESOCR"
false, Pangaea is a provable and scientifically backed THEORY supported by almost every scientist alive today.


Provable by what means? The dispersion of fossils? We still can hardly say that we know that Pangaea existed, and assumptions based on shapes of the prehistoric (get it? before historical record) continent are even more presumptuous.

~D-Draw


provable BY the distribution of fossils. Give me two irrefutable points of evidence against pangaea, and another explaining why fossil distribution does not support it.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Pangaea
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2007, 05:58:03 AM »
No, it is provable by the false evidence that the government gives you, in an attempt to further support the conspiracy.
Logged
?

phaseshifter

  • 841
Pangaea
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2007, 08:41:52 AM »
I thought Pangaea wasn't even accepted mainstream....
Logged
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.
?

gogeta2478

  • 59
Pangaea
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2007, 01:20:06 PM »
i love it how flat earhers can only make an argument over the internet. Thats awesome. Im actually happy that all you fools have is a miniscule forum with under 8,000 members. LOL 8,000? are you joking? less than have of those people actually believe the earth is flat. apparently some one isnt making any progress. and good luck feeding your backwards philosophy to the next generation. im sure they'll listen to you guys. also, most of the people on this forum dont know what they're talking about, FE'ers And RE'ers both. This goes to show that flat earthers arent even arguing to the right people. lol. Your arguing to idiots, which makes you idiots. if i brought in a credible ivy league proffesor to argue against these claims he/she would tear you apart. Dont even start to get cocky. everything i have seen on this sight is a disgust to science. And you people are making progress? I see a bunch of fools on a ludacris forum exchanging retarded ideas with one another. Reminds me of the losers in highschool.
Logged
s the earth really flat?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, maybe go fcuk yourself.
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Pangaea
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2007, 01:26:50 PM »
insulting others is NOT[/size] a way to conduct a civil debate. If all sides see this, this would not be a hostile place. If you have no points, arguments, or otherwise helpful suggestions, don't post.
Logged
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory
?

obcrock

  • 33
Pangaea
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2007, 01:27:27 PM »
Hey, im not an idiot, im going to college and everything, but im really bored and my friend had this site on his profile, ive been addicted to arguing with these people for the last 2.5 hours
Logged
?

obcrock

  • 33
Pangaea
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2007, 01:28:43 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
insulting others is NOT[/size] a way to conduct a civil debate. If all sides see this, this would not be a hostile place. If you have no points, arguments, or otherwise helpful suggestions, don't post.


dude chill man your taking this way to seriously, i mean were arguing about the world being flat, im doing this for laughs, dont know about you
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »