New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[DittoJed2]

Yeah, except that is not what I said. I said that Pangea doesn't work.

Actually, the Bible seems to indicate the possibility of a more closely knit continental system than we see today.

[PatrickHenry]

Non-drifting P L A C E M A R K E R

[whattajoke]

Actually, the Bible seems to indicate the possibility of a more closely knit continental system than we see today.

Well, yeah! and a super tiny little "world" that was capable of being completely flooded over, but not before one gentleman was able to scour every square inch collecting 2 of every single animal "kind." Or something.

[DittoJed2]

No, there is a part in Genesis where it talks about the world being divided. This was during the time of Peleg if I am remembering correctly.

[AndrewC]

Be advised, if you pick a single point and successfully defend it, that success will be marginalized and called meaningless. "But what about all this other stuff"

[whattajoke]

Be advised that is not what's happening here.

[DittoJed2]

I've noticed that.

[AndrewC]

I repeat, my previous message to you. Plus, excuses do not have to be made for things that are not happening.

[AndrewC]

You are very observant!!

[DittoJed2]

Computer models of how Pangea fit together ignore information concerning Central and South America. And, as I said, the way Pangea is usually drawn (at least) shrinks Africa. There are good articles online by creationists that do discuss continental drift. ALL of the suggestions are hypotheses both for the evolutionary side and against. Note, I am not arguing against Plate Techtonics, just against the particular evolutionary interpretation of them.

[DittoJed2]

SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPELLED TECTONICS, SORRY.

[general_re]

Be advised, if you pick a single point and successfully defend it, that success will be marginalized and called meaningless

No fair, old chap - touchdown dances are for after you actually score ;)

[whattajoke]

Plate tectonics is a theory, not a hypothesis. Please be aware of this very important point, it makes a big difference to us fuddy duddy science guys.

There are numerous evidences supporting Pangea. Soil evidence, fossil evidence, mineral evidence, visual evidence, seismic evidence, genetic evidence, faunal evidence. I won't bore you with all that stuff, as you can simply put the phrases "xxx evidence pangea" in google and you'll be rewarded.

Since AndrewC has accused me (implicitly at least) of not focusing, can we return to your contention that "continents aren't on lily pads but there's lots of dirt beneath them?" I mean, that was a pretty important thing you said there and didn't return to.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A friend of mine did some studies of fossil trees in both South America and Africa (work done in 1930s to 1940s, unfortunately I don't have a reference.) What he got was a common sequence (actually several, depending on the family of tree) between both Africa and South America. We can call this sequence A. Then in Africa, there was a sequence B which clearly joined with A giving AB. In South America, there was another sequence C, clearly joined with A, giving AC. So for several types of trees we have a sequences lined up according to AAAAABBBBB and AAAAACCCCC. The AAAAA is common to both Africa and South America, the BBBBB and CCCCC belong to one continent only.

He used this to bolster continential drift before any mechanism was found.

[f.Christian]

good pt ...

Be advised, if you pick a single point and successfully defend it, that success will be marginalized and called meaningless. "But what about all this other stuff"


funny !

evolution is a two toothed ozark spin - smile ...

down with thinking ---

up with lies !

[DittoJed2]

Plate techtonics IS a theory. Pangea is a hypothesis. The way it is typically drawn ignores information. The continents very well may have been together at one point, but it may not have been exactly in the shape that evolutionists propose. Shrinking Africa and ignoring other countries doesn't help the Pangea hypothesis.

As far as the lily-pad analogy goes, do you suggest that the continents are just free floating lily pads? I don't see where my statement was problematic.

[VadeRetro]

The really explicit plate-tectonics deniers are those who throw up Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. (We've had a few such.) That abomination has the continents skidding around on cushions of subterranean water and banging into each other like bumper cars right after the flood. That is, they don't believe in slow tectonics, but they believe the same thing can happen incredibly fast if there's water down below.

Of course, anyone who thinks the earth is 6K old has some kind of a problem with plate tectonics. Most of them just don't know it.

[f.Christian]

The little monkey island - thinking you inhabit - exhibit ... isn't the world God created !

[AndrewC]

No fair, old chap - touchdown dances are for after you actually score ;)

Are you saying I'm that guy who runs a zillion yards and then fumbles the ball just before crossing the touchdown line?

[DittoJed2]

Of course, anyone who thinks the earth is 6K old has some kind of a problem with plate tectonics. Most of them just don't know it
No, just have a problem with the evolutionary interpretation of it. Here is an article by Baumgartner. Of course, you'll reject it too, but it gives another possibility for continental drift. Baumgartner also seems to believe that Pangea is correct. I can disagree here based on the above reasons (mainly missing land mass).http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm