[_ Old Earth _] South America Was Once Part Of Africa.

[Lewis]

When God wanted the flood to subside He pushed up earth and lowered the earth in certain places. Psalms 104:5-10, KJV and in doing so the water abated, also the earth changed drastically after the flood where at one time it was all one land mass. Even today you can see that South America was once part of Africa. Below is a few things to ponder.

• The coasts of the continents surrounding the Atlantic ocean could, if the continents were moved closer, fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
• Living animals in widely separated lands are similar. For example India and Madacasar have similar mammals, which are quite different from those in Africa, even though it is now near to Madascar.
• Fossil plants in India, South Africa, Australia, Antarctica and South America are similar to each other. This so-called Glossopteris flora is quite different from plants found in other parts of the world at the same time.
• The same applies to fossil animals.
• There are numerous geological similarities between eastern South America and western Africa.
• Apparent Polar Wandering: Paleomagnetism tells us how far from the poles rocks were when they formed, by looking at the angle of their magnetic field. The story told by different continents is contradictory, and can only be explained if we assume the continents have moved over time.
• There are ridges in the floors of the main oceans.
• Paleomagnetism shows that the sea floor has spread away from these ridges. Distinct patterns of stripes can be seen in the magnetism of rocks on either side of the ridges.

Continental Drift - Evidence

 

[Tailgunner]

Yes, Lewis. I agree with what you said. If I remember correctly, the name for this super-continent was Pangea, or something similar.

I also wonder how many people realize just what happened during the Great Flood. It wasn't merely 40 days and 40 nights of rain, but an upheaval of the earth's crust, when all the waters of the fountains of the deep burst forth. To be brutally honest, it was like nothing ever seen before or since. To call it catastrophic is putting it mildly. Not to mention the rain. I don't really think the rain was normal heavy rain either, but a true deluge of (no pun intended) Biblical proportions.

TG

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes, Lewis. I agree with what you said. If I remember correctly, the name for this super-continent was Pangea, or something similar.

I also wonder how many people realize just what happened during the Great Flood. It wasn't merely 40 days and 40 nights of rain, but an upheaval of the earth's crust, when all the waters of the fountains of the deep burst forth. To be brutally honest, it was like nothing ever seen before or since. To call it catastrophic is putting it mildly. Not to mention the rain. I don't really think the rain was normal heavy rain either, but a true deluge of (no pun intended) Biblical proportions.

TG

What happened to all the heat?

 

[Tailgunner]

What happened to all the heat?

I'm not sure what you mean, Lordkalvan.

TG

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm not sure what you mean, Lordkalvan.

TG

Sorry for not being clearer, TG. All the processes you describe generate heat - a great deal of heat. By any logic, the 'fountains of the deep' would themselves be issuing superheated water, the lava flows resulting from 'the upheaval of the earth's crust' would produce enormous amounts of heat, and the friction of tectonic plates moving great distances in a short time would add even more to the waste-heat 'pot'. What prevented this waste heat from boiling the oceans and destroying every last vestige of life on Earth? What signs are there that this waste impacted on Earth about 4 KYA ago at all?

 

[Tailgunner]

Sorry, LordKalvan, but I don't have an answer for you. I've read that the result of the flood was likely an ice age afterward, but as for all the heat generated during the flood, you've stumped me. But thanks for mentioning that, because it will send me back to the books to research this. I'll try to find out what I can.

TG

 

[Tailgunner]

I don't like to edit posts I've already made, so I'll just add to my post above. I remember being in a pressure chamber once, when the atmospheric pressure was increased from the roughly 14 pounds per square inch of sea level to 50 lbs. It got very hot in the chamber during the compression. When they decreased the pressure, it was very chilly in there. Just a thought, wouldn't the same thing happen when the waters under the earth were released?

And would they have been that hot to begin with? You're addressing a Biblical scenario, so we'll assume it's roughly 1,660 years after they were compressed to begin with. Would they still be as hot as they were? I know they would still be at least very warm, but upon decompression, would they not cool rapidly?

TG

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't like to edit posts I've already made, so I'll just add to my post above. I remember being in a pressure chamber once, when the atmospheric pressure was increased from the roughly 14 pounds per square inch of sea level to 50 lbs. It got very hot in the chamber during the compression. When they decreased the pressure, it was very chilly in there. Just a thought, wouldn't the same thing happen when the waters under the earth were released?

And would they have been that hot to begin with? You're addressing a Biblical scenario, so we'll assume it's roughly 1,660 years after they were compressed to begin with. Would they still be as hot as they were? I know they would still be at least very warm, but upon decompression, would they not cool rapidly?

TG

Yes, but I think the problem is that the latent heat that is being released has to go somewhere and it is the heat that is generated by all these processes (fountains of the deep, upheaval of the crust, tectonic plates, etc) that we have to consider. Where does it go and what impact does it have? Regardless of the legendary flood itself, there are a number of processes that have shaped Earth's surface that have clearly generated vast amounts of heat (and toxic gases in the case of lava flows, for example). Compressing all these events into the timeframe demanded by a 'young' Earth less that 10 KYO would make that 'young' Earth wholly uninhabitable by most forms of life as we know them.

 

[Pard]

Lord Kelvan. I posted this before and I do not believe you responded (I think you were sick at the time, or away or something).

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

This man has a very compelling theory and he has a very complete book on his theory. Furthermore he has a challenge for anyone willing to argue his theory with him. If you have a problem with his theory you should look into his challenge, I think it has a monetary reward (so far no one has been able to beat him, and the debate is held in a neutral university of your choice by a neutral moderator).

I am sure you can find the answer to your heat issue on that site I linked.

 

[lordkalvan]

Lord Kelvan. I posted this before and I do not believe you responded (I think you were sick at the time, or away or something).

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

This man has a very compelling theory and he has a very complete book on his theory. Furthermore he has a challenge for anyone willing to argue his theory with him. If you have a problem with his theory you should look into his challenge, I think it has a monetary reward (so far no one has been able to beat him, and the debate is held in a neutral university of your choice by a neutral moderator).

I am sure you can find the answer to your heat issue on that site I linked.

Hello Pard,

Sorry if I missed the link before.

I am familiar with Walter Brown's ideas. I am not aware that he proposes any mechanism for dealing with the massive heat his more than idiosyncratic ideas about the legendary flood require. Amongst other things, he proposes the fountains of the deep erupting with the force of 1500 trillion (yes, trillion) 1 MT hydrogen bombs. Even simple arithmetic tells you that this amounts to the equivalent of 3000 1 MT bombs for every square kilometre of earth's surface; if the 'fountains of the deep' erupted for 40 days, that's 70+ 1 MT bomb-equivalents per square kilometre per day. On top of this Wally proposes that the fountains of the deep are responsible for comets, ejecting water into space at escape velocities (apparently paying no attention to the frictional effects of the atmosphere and orbital mechanics). Oh, and while they were busy ejecting water into space, the fountains of the deep were also busy ejecting mud and rocks which helpfully went on to form the asteroids (also without being affected by atmospheric friction and orbital mechanics). And these are just three examples of the farrago of nonsense that the 'hydroplate theory' amounts to. If you can direct me to any point where Wally actually deals with the implications for Earth of the heat transfer consequent upon the eccentric ideas he puts forward, I would be happy to consider it.

As to Brown's 'debate' offer, if you read it you will see that it is hedged round by so many preconditions that one doubts he wants to debate anyone at all. If Brown is seriously interested in debating, he can present his views in one of the many online boards dealing with such issues, but he is conspicuous by his absence.

 

[Tailgunner]

Lord Kelvan. I posted this before and I do not believe you responded (I think you were sick at the time, or away or something).

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

This man has a very compelling theory and he has a very complete book on his theory. Furthermore he has a challenge for anyone willing to argue his theory with him. If you have a problem with his theory you should look into his challenge, I think it has a monetary reward (so far no one has been able to beat him, and the debate is held in a neutral university of your choice by a neutral moderator).

I am sure you can find the answer to your heat issue on that site I linked.

Hi Pard. For some reason, your link wouldn't work for me, so I looked up the title at Amazon. Took a look at the book from their "Look Inside" feature, and from what I could see it looks to be fascinating reading. Long story short, it will be delivered tomorrow. Thanks for the reference.

TG

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi Pard. For some reason, your link wouldn't work for me, so I looked up the title at Amazon. Took a look at the book from their "Look Inside" feature, and from what I could see it looks to be fascinating reading. Long story short, it will be delivered tomorrow. Thanks for the reference.

TG

Oh dear, you could have saved your money and read it online:

www. creationscience. com/onlinebook/

Web address for anyone else who may be interested (I have followed Sparrow's practice of putting extra spaces in to prevent it being presented as a non-working link).

 

[Tailgunner]

It's OK, lordkalvan. I really prefer a book to reading online anyway, but thanks for the address.

TG

 

[mpok1519]

Yes, the earth's continenets were one at one time, but mankind was not apart of the earth's biosphere at that time. During the time of Noah's flood, which was supposed to have happened somewhere around 6000 years ago, the earth was much closer to the continental placement we have today than when compared to Pangea. Its simply impossible for continents and lad masses of that magnitude to move that quickly without creating a world-wide catastrophe that would in-turn destroy literally all life on earth as we know it. If the continents were to suddenly move drastically tomorrow, and the earth reshaped and reconfigured the landmasses, barely any life would even be able to survive due to the cataclysmic events that would need to follow, such as boiling oceans, the inevitable supervolcanos, landslides the size of europe made up of molten rock, etc.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Directed to no one in particular:

• Apparent Polar Wandering: Paleomagnetism tells us how far from the poles rocks were when they formed, by looking at the angle of their magnetic field. The story told by different continents is contradictory, and can only be explained if we assume the continents have moved over time.
• There are ridges in the floors of the main oceans.
• Paleomagnetism shows that the sea floor has spread away from these ridges. Distinct patterns of stripes can be seen in the magnetism of rocks on either side of the ridges.

It is not even something that we can debate, the fact is, the continents DID move. The record of magnetism in the ocean floor shows us that, clearly, things have changed, and are changing today.

I reject the idea that the flood and a fast movement of the continents are related. Sorry, but to say that the continents suddenly moved just does not add up. The heat question alone denies this, as does the magnetic record in the ocean floor.

You can hang on like grim death to your conviction that the earth is under 10,000 years old - just like the mid evil church insisted on a small, earth-centered universe. But the fact is, the more we learn, the more we know that the earth is very, very old. Almost infinitely old. Kinda like how God is infinitely great - His creation is, seemingly, infinitely great as well.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have to agree pretty much with what Pizzaguy says.

Tailgunner, any luck with making sense of the hydroplate theory yet?