Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pangaea"
From Conservapedia
(expertise) |
(→Please Explain) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST) | Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :: No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:27, 19th November 2008(EST) | ||
Revision as of 12:28, November 19, 2008
Please Explain
Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Entheogenicorder (talk)
- You might like to have a look over the articles here. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The intention was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity affected the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
- I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--Entheogenicorder 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)
Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --Ed Poor Talk 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
- No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people.--Entheogenicorder 07:27, 19th November 2008(EST)