Pangaea

hey obcrock ... or should i say crock pot

your not doing this for laughs? then what are you doing it for? People like martin luther kind junior didnt make small talk of what they believed in. They took action. You sit on your computer chair and argue with ignorant people over an internet forum. thats good.

and by the way... i am serious. you just are not able to respond to my posts thats all.
so go on and rammble away cause by the time you die, no one will remember your name and the flat earth society will be a shit pot. Rember this.

it does not mean you can make more insults than points and somehow expect to feel like an important contribution. You aren't. You are an annoyance making you and your side's debates credibility fall drastically.

lets keep these arguments civil, and sane if possible. if you aren't contributing, you have no reason to post. There is a ranting section for that.

my side? my side consists of roughly 6 billion people. your side is less that 5,000. how do ya like them apples

hey obcrock ... or should i say crock pot

your not doing this for laughs? then what are you doing it for? People like martin luther kind junior didnt make small talk of what they believed in. They took action. You sit on your computer chair and argue with ignorant people over an internet forum. thats good.

and by the way... i am serious. you just are not able to respond to my posts thats all.
so go on and rammble away cause by the time you die, no one will remember your name and the flat earth society will be a shit pot. Rember this.

woa dude, first of all, get some help.

Second: i said i WAS doing this for laughs, and when i get off my comp and go back to school on saturday i will probaly never visit this site again.

Third: you have more than twice the posts i do, so whose waseting their life?

but seriously u sound like the kind of person who would murder somone because they offend you



BTW: i in no way believe about a flat earth, and none of my statments have indicated that, your a complete psyco

my side? my side consists of roughly 6 billion people. your side is less that 5,000. how do ya like them apples

first off, I'm on your side if you haven't noticed.

second, not on these forums. Here, where the debate is taking place, its a fairly even split. I would say skewed 60% FE.

so, I don't like the apples. I hope you do.

your right. if i believed the earth was flat like these idiots, i would envision my self torturing the conspirators. Have you ever seen Sin City? im sick and sadistic. I would take the head conspirator, chop off his arms and legs, lean him againt a tree and let a dog eat him alive. Of course i would stop the bleading at his severed limbs so that he would survive to see the dog spill his guts out


sorry, i thought you were a FE'er, i read your post wrong

This is just getting noob-cluttered. I'm not even going to bother, but the fact is that I don't need evidence AGAINST Antarctica being in Pangaea. And simply because I don't have evidence against Pangaea doesn't mean that it does exist. Nonexistent until proven existent, please, unless you want to believe that there are thousands of invisible, intangible-but-living unicorns hanging around in every nook and cranny of this world.

Also, keep in mind, I'm not really arguing against Pangaea--I happen to believe it existed--I'm arguing against the "map" of Pangaea. I just think it's too pretentious to think that we know what Pangaea looked like.


~D-Draw

You are an idiot there have been plenty of fossils found in Antartica.  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Antarctica.shtml

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

It is called physics.  By observing modern continental drift it is possible to use newtons laws to put it into reverse, with a good bit of accuracy.  Also I will be nice, and not argue that we can know where on the globe Pangea was(many places it did move).  But looking at any map you can see it's shape, the continents are like puzzle pieces that is how we found out about continental drift in the first place.

This is just getting noob-cluttered. I'm not even going to bother, but the fact is that I don't need evidence AGAINST Antarctica being in Pangaea. And simply because I don't have evidence against Pangaea doesn't mean that it does exist. Nonexistent until proven existent, please, unless you want to believe that there are thousands of invisible, intangible-but-living unicorns hanging around in every nook and cranny of this world.

Also, keep in mind, I'm not really arguing against Pangaea--I happen to believe it existed--I'm arguing against the "map" of Pangaea. I just think it's too pretentious to think that we know what Pangaea looked like.


~D-Draw

so the government faked two continents, one I've been to, thousands of miles of coastlines, and fossil placements?

Heck yes. If they are capable of all working together, they are capable of faking all of that.

this is such a prestigious forum!!!!!!!
i think this site is considered credible if you were writing a college paper!!
my ass

so the government faked two continents, one I've been to, thousands of miles of coastlines, and fossil placements?

You've been to Pangaea?!

 :shock:

~D-Draw

Quote from: "RESOCR"

so the government faked two continents, one I've been to, thousands of miles of coastlines, and fossil placements?

You've been to Pangaea?!

 :shock:

~D-Draw

no, faked the continents of Australia and Antarctica.

Who claimed that Australia was fake? And Antarctica is exists, just not how it is in the RE model.

~D-Draw

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.

he said so

and, explain fossil distribution, without considering Pangaea. We'll forget plate tectonics and coastline matching for a minute to let you think about it.

and, explain fossil distribution, without considering Pangaea. We'll forget plate tectonics and coastline matching for a minute to let you think about it.

The fossils are not distributed. The government only tells you they are.

When you go to a museum and see fossils, it will tell you where they dug them up, but how do you know for sure that they are telling the truth? They could easily lie to you, and you would not have any idea that they were, because you just accept everything they tell you. I don't believe that the fossils are distributed in the way scientists who support Pangaea claim they are. I believe that the similar fossils that they claim to prove that Pangaea existed were actually dug up on the same continents.

Quote from: "RESOCR"

and, explain fossil distribution, without considering Pangaea. We'll forget plate tectonics and coastline matching for a minute to let you think about it.

The fossils are not distributed. The government only tells you they are.

When you go to a museum and see fossils, it will tell you where they dug them up, but how do you know for sure that they are telling the truth? They could easily lie to you, and you would not have any idea that they were, because you just accept everything they tell you. I don't believe that the fossils are distributed in the way scientists who support Pangaea claim they are. I believe that the similar fossils that they claim to prove that Pangaea existed were actually dug up on the same continents.

you still have plate tectonics in conjunction with startlingly similar results in coastlines.

you still have plate tectonics in conjunction with startlingly similar results in coastlines.

Did you ever measure the movements of the continents? No, they were all measured by government-funded scientists.

Quote from: "RESOCR"

you still have plate tectonics in conjunction with startlingly similar results in coastlines.

Did you ever measure the movements of the continents? No, they were all measured by government-funded scientists.

and has been comfirmed by GPS fanatics and such.

and has been comfirmed by GPS fanatics and such.

Who are in on, or being fooled by, the government and the conspiracy.

Quote from: "RESOCR"

and has been comfirmed by GPS fanatics and such.

Who are in on, or being fooled by, the government and the conspiracy.

you are saying their instruments are lying to them?

you are saying their instruments are lying to them?

Yes, because they were made to lie to people.

instruments... they build themselves...
they program their own tools to lie?

instruments... they build themselves...
they program their own tools to lie?

Do their tools even exist? Last time I checked, satellites do not exist, so a GPS system isn't even possible.

Okay, I have been thinking about this, and I think that Antarctica's presence in Pangaea is a solution to another problem I have been having.

Now, we all know about the ice wall, a 150 foot tall barrier from whatever is 'outside'  but how did it form?

One theory is that water cascading into the depth of space lost it's heat, as there is no sun there to add energy to the atoms, causing them (eventually) to slow and the water to change to ice.

But wait, why is the Ice Wall 150 feet high IF the only thing that was added to it was water cascading over the edge?  Surely the wall wouldn't rise over the water level, except possibly a little, as particularly large waves crashed into it and left water to freeze over, but still 150 feet?

Perhaps, as Antarctica seperated, and moved to where it is today, it's mass pushed the edges of the Ice Wall up, causing it to rise above the surrounding ocean?

This is my new theory.  Help me work out the details.

Antarctica's mass is not enough to fragment and solidly cover the entirety of the rim. The wall would then be anywhere from maybe 50-200ft depending upon the location, spineward from South America probably being highest.

Antarctica's mass is not enough to fragment and solidly cover the entirety of the rim. The wall would then be anywhere from maybe 50-200ft depending upon the location, spineward from South America probably being highest.

You mean it isn't big enough according to Round Earth maps.

Quote from: "RESOCR"

Antarctica's mass is not enough to fragment and solidly cover the entirety of the rim. The wall would then be anywhere from maybe 50-200ft depending upon the location, spineward from South America probably being highest.

You mean it isn't big enough according to Round Earth maps.

nor is it by pangaea standards.

using "the government is lying" as an excuse has stop, or at least used in moderation