A Serious Question: Pangea

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's backtrack a moment here. Scribs' fourth option was:

4) No, although like the fossils, God has put evidence of Pangea in the earth, to either confound man or test his faith.

This is actually a conjunction of three premises:

A) No, Pangea did not exist.
B) God has put evidence of Pangea in the earth.
C) God did (B) to either co ...[text shortened]... al conclusion of such a hypothesis. Nor have I seen creationists actually cleave to that reason.

Originally posted by Halitose
Hiya FS, your link had a lot more "science" than the previous "proof" I had to deal with. Not too easy to dimiss as a bunch of logical fallicies, 🙂

Concession1: I admit the case for an old earth is an almost overwhelmingly strong one...
Concession2: Good link...

Although he didn't quite counter all the assumptions conclusively, it seems quite ...[text shortened]... radioactive decay over time:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=200

Originally posted by frogstomp
It seems your guy hasn't read Wein:
"Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is ...[text shortened]... ng today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives."

Originally posted by Halitose
Erm... pardon my ignorance, but how do you conclusively measure radioactive decay and its half-life through a telescope?

Originally posted by frogstomp
spectrography.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'm still not sure I'm following you... Isn't a spectrograph used to measure the intensity and wavelength of light and the resulting spectrum. Surely this wouldn't be considered hard evidence for radioactive decay. I understand that different elements would give different spectra, but how would you calculate concentrations etc which are essential to radiometric dating?

i think that the world was connected but not from the atlantic i think that it could have been the gap between alaska and asia in the land bridge that was once there is and is now gone is a result of pangea

Originally posted by will123
i think that the world was connected but not from the atlantic i think that it could have been the gap between alaska and asia in the land bridge that was once there is and is now gone is a result of pangea

Originally posted by frogstomp
The land bridge you speak of was formed during the last ice age and has nothing to do with Pangea.

Originally posted by Halitose
In the YEC model, the last ice age was just after pagea and the flood.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you know what I think of the YEC model , don't you?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is the third installment in my "A Serious Question" series. The first two have been a success, marked by reasonable, on-topic discussion directly addressing the question at hand. Hopefully we may continue in that vein.

This week's question: Do creationists believe in Pangea - the idea that all of earth's continents used to be interlock ...[text shortened]... rizes your beliefs about Pangea. I will be happy to entertain wholly different options as well.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do not know, I guess it is possible. As it says in the beginning
the earth was without form and void, so how it got molded into
form at the beginning is anyone's guess.
Kelly
Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the
surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the
waters.

Originally posted by Halitose
That its not much more than a pile of doo-doo?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think all the options I gave are equally likely to be true?