There was no Pangea...the Earth is growing.

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
Interesting. Where does all the water come from?

Try reading the first book of the Bible and I think you will know where the water came from . Keep this video in mind and reread the first book of the Bible. Kinda neat how it all fits together. I Love how if this is fact how its discredits the scientific community.

How does it discredit the scientific community? Some of the foundations of science is the ability to constantly challenge and/or change current theories.

Read about creation and I don't want to hear all this in 6 days. God doesn't keep track of time why should He/She /It.

Bible says waters were beneth the earth and above the earth. How does this discredit the scientific community. Were to begin .

I use just one example . Lets pretend the bible creation story is resonably accurate.

If water resided above the earth . Than radio carbon date . Would be off Big time. As direct sunlight didn't reach the earth. Imagine an earth were the air is thick with moisture. and the climate is the same every where. Nice a warm for repilian life.

When noeh was building the Ark people laughed because he said there was going to be a flood. Uptill this point it is thought that rain hasn't ever happened yet. After the Flood God promised noeh that he would never destroy the earth again with water. As a sign of this Noah seen the First rainbow ever. Further more not sure who it was But he was drinking the fruit of the Vine and became drunk . This also was a first. Now that direct sunlight could firmentate the fruit. Also sorts of small details tell a pretty accurte story of the earths history. The fact that in the creation record man was created last is a telling stoty in and of itself . A man making up a stoty placing man last in the creation record .

The history of man we know about that just don't jive, Man would have placed himself first among living organism not last. WE all know who men are right.

Pretend being the operative word here.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't see why everyone is so upset about this? I mean, a couple hundred years ago the though that the continents fit together was grounds for death. Why is it so absured that we could learn more and eventually discover that this guy was at least partially right?

People are afraid of change I dont get it either... Thinking the earth was round and orbited around the sun used to be outrageous too... Its specially disturbing coming from people interested in science - those should have the most open of minds

I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else

I think the first point of contention is that other than being able to make animations that can magically grow a solid ball into the modern day Earth, there isn't a shred of theory or proof presented in the video to back up what he's spouting.

True that, I kept waiting for him to explain HOW it happened, instead of repeating the same thing over and over... But its a cute theory, I hope he can come up with something

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't see why everyone is so upset about this? I mean, a couple hundred years ago the though that the continents fit together was grounds for death. Why is it so absured that we could learn more and eventually discover that this guy was at least partially right?

Where is the volume coming from? It has to come from SOMEwhere.

Plate tectonics were controversial because everyone had operated under the assumption of a stationary crust, and so it was a bit of a shock to hear the new theory. But there were few valid scientific objections...people wanted a mechanism, and they came up with one.

As for this "theory"...if he can come up with a MECHANISM for why the earth is "growing", and it actually fits, maybe I'll give it a chance. But I can't think of one. Obviously the mass of the earth isn't increasing, and given what we know about the earth's interior, I can't think of any sort of reaction or structural rearrangement which would produce the increase in volume necessary to pull the plates apart as he describes.

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Perry404
I have to say I think it's obvious land is moving or there would be no mountains.

Plate tectonics. Educate thyself on it. You've got a big crispy shell covering a gooey cream filling, under all kinds of pressure. Ever heard what happens when you microwave a jawbreaker? Some layers liquefy, while others don't. Pressure builds, and things can crack, with considerable force.

[edited for brevity]

In other words, he's right... land is moving.

Umm...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being cute.

But if not, I would just like to point out that no one is disputing that plates move. The issue of contention, and the reason that he is almost certainly wrong, is that he claims the earth is GROWING to force the plates to move. The current model, and much more likely mechanism, is that seafloor spreading and subduction is what allows the plates to move.

Even crazy people usually get a couple of things right. But those are never the issue.

I don't have any answers. I just think that there are a few valid points that he made and people shouldn't be so closed minded.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't see why everyone is so upset about this? I mean, a couple hundred years ago the though that the continents fit together was grounds for death. Why is it so absured that we could learn more and eventually discover that this guy was at least partially right?

Where is the volume coming from? It has to come from SOMEwhere.

Plate tectonics were controversial because everyone had operated under the assumption of a stationary crust, and so it was a bit of a shock to hear the new theory. But there were few valid scientific objections...people wanted a mechanism, and they came up with one.

As for this "theory"...if he can come up with a MECHANISM for why the earth is "growing", and it actually fits, maybe I'll give it a chance. But I can't think of one. Obviously the mass of the earth isn't increasing, and given what we know about the earth's interior, I can't think of any sort of reaction or structural rearrangement which would produce the increase in volume necessary to pull the plates apart as he describes.

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Perry404
I have to say I think it's obvious land is moving or there would be no mountains.

Plate tectonics. Educate thyself on it. You've got a big crispy shell covering a gooey cream filling, under all kinds of pressure. Ever heard what happens when you microwave a jawbreaker? Some layers liquefy, while others don't. Pressure builds, and things can crack, with considerable force.

[edited for brevity]

In other words, he's right... land is moving.

Umm...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being cute.

But if not, I would just like to point out that no one is disputing that plates move. The issue of contention, and the reason that he is almost certainly wrong, is that he claims the earth is GROWING to force the plates to move. The current model, and much more likely mechanism, is that seafloor spreading and subduction is what allows the plates to move.

Even crazy people usually get a couple of things right. But those are never the issue.

I don't have any answers. I just think that there are a few valid points that he made and people shouldn't be so closed minded.

What points?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The history of man we know about that just don't jive, Man would have placed himself first among living organism not last. WE all know who men are right.

Too true!

Which means that evolution must be fact as well, because it has man coming last in line, which of course people would be too proud to admit if they were just making it up.

Genesis was never meant to be a textbook, and in fact reading it on such a simplistic level detracts from the work itself as well as being demonstrably Wrong. You don't see cartographers actively seeking the "Valley of the shadow of death" because it was mentioned in psalms...that's just stupid. You don't see people taking figurative passages about "milk and honey" literally (Oh wait, maybe you do). Why go all hard-line on the poetry of Genesis and yet acknowledge the Psalms were never literal? It seems much, much, much more likely to me that we are misinterpreting the much-translated text as being more literal than intended, than that God is actively lying to us by placing enormous swathes of data on and around the earth which contradict a literal interpretation.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: RFtesla
Yes, lets all listen to the man who draws comic books for a living. I would love to see this guy present his theory at AGU or GSA, it would be a good time had by all. As a geologist, I'd love to meet this guy someday.

Oh man, is this really the same Neal Adams as the comic artist? That saddens me. A lot of great artists have a touch of madness I suppose.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
Interesting. Where does all the water come from?

Try reading the first book of the Bible and I think you will know where the water came from . Keep this video in mind and reread the first book of the Bible. Kinda neat how it all fits together. I Love how if this is fact how its discredits the scientific community.

How does it discredit the scientific community? Some of the foundations of science is the ability to constantly challenge and/or change current theories.

Read about creation and I don't want to hear all this in 6 days. God doesn't keep track of time why should He/She /It.

Bible says waters were beneth the earth and above the earth. How does this discredit the scientific community. Were to begin .

I use just one example . Lets pretend the bible creation story is resonably accurate.

If water resided above the earth . Than radio carbon date . Would be off Big time. As direct sunlight didn't reach the earth. Imagine an earth were the air is thick with moisture. and the climate is the same every where. Nice a warm for repilian life.

When noeh was building the Ark people laughed because he said there was going to be a flood. Uptill this point it is thought that rain hasn't ever happened yet. After the Flood God promised noeh that he would never destroy the earth again with water. As a sign of this Noah seen the First rainbow ever. Further more not sure who it was But he was drinking the fruit of the Vine and became drunk . This also was a first. Now that direct sunlight could firmentate the fruit. Also sorts of small details tell a pretty accurte story of the earths history. The fact that in the creation record man was created last is a telling stoty in and of itself . A man making up a stoty placing man last in the creation record .

The history of man we know about that just don't jive, Man would have placed himself first among living organism not last. WE all know who men are right.

Pretend being the operative word here.

Ownt?

Plus everyone knows the world came from an egg laid by Zeus that got cracked because Buddha sat on it.

 

[njswift10141980]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
So how is the earth growing?

teh magix!

my bet is on steroids

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Pretend being the operative word here.

Ownt?

Plus everyone knows the world came from an egg laid by Zeus that got cracked because Buddha sat on it.

WTF, that wasn't even an argument, just an insult. I don't think the scenario he described is accurate in the least, but making some snarky comment about it hardly constitutes "ownage". Pointing out holes in logic and the masses of evidence that contradict that scenario, as well as the large number of believers (including the Pope) who also reject that interpretation, would be much more reasonable.

 

[Nitemare]

So according to the diagrams water did not exist 70 million years ago?

I think Scientology makes more sense than this...

 

[sutahz]

As far as mass and density. The molten rock is under a lot of pressure, so when it comes to the surface its under less pressure and expands. Sounds simple enough.
Nemesis, is that really how you type or did you copy and paste your post?

Bible says waters were beneth the earth and above the earth
Were to begin .
If water resided above the earth . Than radio carbon date .
When noeh was building the Ark
God promised noeh
a sign of this Noah seen the First rainbow ever (good job, got it right that time, even capitolized it... strange.)

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Pretend being the operative word here.

Ownt?

Plus everyone knows the world came from an egg laid by Zeus that got cracked because Buddha sat on it.

WTF, that wasn't even an argument, just an insult. I don't think the scenario he described is accurate in the least, but making some snarky comment about it hardly constitutes "ownage". Pointing out holes in logic and the masses of evidence that contradict that scenario, as well as the large number of believers (including the Pope) who also reject that interpretation, would be much more reasonable.

Well, I can't exactly say this was a serious thread to begin with. That and the "ownt" was applied to Born2bwire's comment. However, if you feel the need to point out the massive contradictions in religion, be my guest. I just don't feel like writing a long in depth analysis only to have him rebuke it with "I have faith". Which always happens in religious threads.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
So according to the diagrams water did not exist 70 million years ago?

I think Scientology makes more sense than this...

Oh my !
When scientology starts to make sense, its time to close the books.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Oh not this again.

EARTH IS FLAT TOOOO OMG TEH NOES!!!!

Oh, and it's turtles all the way down.

Originally posted by: Perry404
I have to say I think it's obvious land is moving or there would be no mountains.

Plate tectonics. Educate thyself on it. You've got a big crispy shell covering a gooey cream filling, under all kinds of pressure. Ever heard what happens when you microwave a jawbreaker? Some layers liquefy, while others don't. Pressure builds, and things can crack, with considerable force.

While Earth isn't about to blow up, that pressure does keep the crust fractured, and since the pieces are floating atop a big sea of pressurized goop, there's going to be a little bit of jostling around. Sometimes things bump into each other. We tiny humans think this gentle bumping can be insanely destructive, as it causes the ground to shake a few feet this way and that, or it causes little ripples throughout the ocean, but we call them "huge" because they're several times our tiny height.
Or sometimes one of these plates gets squished underneath another one, and as it stays down there, it heats up and melts. Pressure builds from the other side, and forces even more of the plate down into the mantle - a subduction zone.

Volcanoes - pressure builds, and sometimes it finds a way out. We think of them as huge eruptions, but really, a lava flow to Earth is just a little bit of juice squirting through the surface, no big deal. You might pop a pimple and think nothing of it, but you've just disrupted the lives of millions of bacteria, cheerfully enjoying their little home in your face.

One of the points I'm making here with this sort of language is that people seem to have trouble grasping the size of Earth, relative to one person. As such, they have a tough time understanding how some of the larger scale processes work. They're used to working in terms of small things, like cars, or buildings. Tell them about plates that cover millions of square miles, and the process in their mind goes, "Big? Really big.....buffer overrun......rabbits are fuzzy....invalid theory." You get an error message and try to figure out some other reason.
Big plates doing all kinds of complex interactions, earthquakes, volcanoes, tectonic theory, pressure, heat......bleh. "Earth is getting bigger." That's nice and easy. I understand how things get bigger, like inflating a balloon. Easy. I can understand it so it must be right.
Some of these things aren't too tough to understand - if you can change your scale of thinking, move away from the tiny human world, and look on a geological, or astronomical scale.

The only grain of truth, by comparison, is truly a grain - Earth IS growing. Every day, interplanetary dust rains down on us, tons of it every day. Tons. Tens of thousands of kilograms. Earth's mass? Google's answer to that: 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms. 10^3/10^24 = 0.000000000000000000001
Ain't gonna make a lot of difference. Earth still growing? Nope. The majority of that accretion took place billions of years ago. Leftover chunks that cause occasional impacts are dusty leftovers that haven't been swept up yet.

So what is you point and why are you responding to me?
I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The history of man we know about that just don't jive, Man would have placed himself first among living organism not last. WE all know who men are right.

Too true!

Which means that evolution must be fact as well, because it has man coming last in line, which of course people would be too proud to admit if they were just making it up.

Genesis was never meant to be a textbook, and in fact reading it on such a simplistic level detracts from the work itself as well as being demonstrably Wrong. You don't see cartographers actively seeking the "Valley of the shadow of death" because it was mentioned in psalms...that's just stupid. You don't see people taking figurative passages about "milk and honey" literally (Oh wait, maybe you do). Why go all hard-line on the poetry of Genesis and yet acknowledge the Psalms were never literal? It seems much, much, much more likely to me that we are misinterpreting the much-translated text as being more literal than intended, than that God is actively lying to us by placing enormous swathes of data on and around the earth which contradict a literal interpretation.

Thats exactly right. Genisis was never intended to be a text book. A simply history of creation is all it is . The Bible isn't a scientific paper. Was never intened to be . As for evoltion its doesn't matter . GOD created the soup thats the important thing. THE Bible is a History of anciestry with guide lines as to how we interact with one another and GOD.

It was the HRCC that started all the BS. Because by this time Ceaser took control of religion . To rule the hearts and mines of Man . History show clearly leaders are the way to salvation is it not so. PSALMS were songs written by David in his praising of GoD almighty . Nothing more.

Now back to creation and lets forget about the Bible. Someone please discribe to me an earth and its Climate were Dino evolved for that matter go back to the first signs of life.


There are all sorts of ways to debunk this guys story. The Hawian islands for one.

At the same time where did oil come from. Look how much of it theres is from all that decayed life forms. Now at the same time go out side on a dark clear night and look to the heavens. You may see a few shouting stars falling to earth . Keep in mind as you go back in time . There are many many more metories hitting the earths atmosphere. Threw the eons how much mass has the earth gained. How did that oil get so far beneth the surface. Why to is it consentraited in certain areas . What fuels the earths engine.

Another thing as an object cools does it expand or contract. Also sorts of ways to debunk this . The one piece of info that did take me by surprise here is the bit about the age of the sea floor that one also can likely be explained away . But it did make me think.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't see why everyone is so upset about this? I mean, a couple hundred years ago the though that the continents fit together was grounds for death. Why is it so absured that we could learn more and eventually discover that this guy was at least partially right?

People are afraid of change I dont get it either... Thinking the earth was round and orbited around the sun used to be outrageous too... Its specially disturbing coming from people interested in science - those should have the most open of minds

I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else

Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age

Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't see why everyone is so upset about this? I mean, a couple hundred years ago the though that the continents fit together was grounds for death. Why is it so absured that we could learn more and eventually discover that this guy was at least partially right?

People are afraid of change I dont get it either... Thinking the earth was round and orbited around the sun used to be outrageous too... Its specially disturbing coming from people interested in science - those should have the most open of minds

I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else

Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age

Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
So how is the earth growing?

Milk.....it does a body good.

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
So how is the earth growing?

gets a lot of sun, water, nutrients.

 

[IronWing]

Natural gas.... oh, oh.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
Interesting. Where does all the water come from?

Try reading the first book of the Bible and I think you will know where the water came from . Keep this video in mind and reread the first book of the Bible. Kinda neat how it all fits together. I Love how if this is fact how its discredits the scientific community.

Ah, you make it so easy.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
Interesting. Where does all the water come from?

The fifth dimension!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: AmdEmAll
Interesting. Where does all the water come from?

The fifth dimension!

He said that all the land mass and water creation was all done in pair productions in the last 70 million years....

 

[SunnyD]

Well, I honestly can see the arguement. It IS hypothetically possible for the earth to grow in volume (not mass) in this manner. Most all materials expand as they cool. If the earth was a very dense place 65 billion years ago, then I could see this happening. Over the next 65 million years, the earth expands, and in doing so creates more surface area to cool, which is this whole accelerating expansion thing they're talking about. As far as the questions about where the water came from... who said it wasn't there the whole time? Someone said miles deep... yeah. Remember, large portions of habitable land have previously been under water as sediment records show.

I don't buy it, not on the time scale they're talking about. 65 million years, no. 600 million years, no. 3.5 billion years... it's possible. After all, Copernicus proved established theory wrong...

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Well, I honestly can see the arguement. It IS hypothetically possible for the earth to grow in volume (not mass) in this manner. Most all materials expand as they cool. If the earth was a very dense place 65 billion years ago, then I could see this happening. Over the next 65 million years, the earth expands, and in doing so creates more surface area to cool, which is this whole accelerating expansion thing they're talking about. As far as the questions about where the water came from... who said it wasn't there the whole time? Someone said miles deep... yeah. Remember, large portions of habitable land have previously been under water as sediment records show.

I don't buy it, not on the time scale they're talking about. 65 million years, no. 600 million years, no. 3.5 billion years... it's possible. After all, Copernicus proved established theory wrong...

Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!! No, but sort of maybe. Most materials contract as they cool. However, minerals may undergo phase changes to less dense phases as they move from high pressure to lower pressure.

One neat exercise we did in a geophysics class was to develop a density/buoyancy diagram for basalt from a spreading center (mid-ocean ridge) to a subduction zone. Basically we took the known thermal expansion properties of basalt, the known temperatures at the spreading centers, and estimated the elevation loss as the basalt was carried outward into the basin. The elevation loss being the result of thermal contraction of the crustal mass and sinking into the asthenosphere as buoyancy decreased. The 1D elevation cross section we calculated from thermal properties was pretty close to the measured cross section of the ocean floor.