We used to be a supercontinent....so what happened???
Attention Debators: This particular debate was designed as an assignment for my middle schoolers. If you are planning on using profane language or oferringderogatory comments, please consider visiting other debates.Thanks!
Scientists largely agree that all continents were once part of a much larger supercontinent, which they have named Pangaea. They base this off of fossil records that have been found on various continents which have created indisputible links between continents. Many scientists, however, have very different theories on how the continents came to rest in their present positions. Follow the links below and research each of the perspectives on this issue. After that, choose a side, and defend your position with a paragrah containing AT LEAST seven sentences. Your reason must be backed by research, and not solely on emotion. You may use other resources that you look up or have available as well to defend your case. May the best argument win!
Continental Drift
Side Score: 120
Winning Side! |
 |
Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
Side Score: 59
|
|
|
|
|
Let us determine the key for the logical structure: C = continental drift (contextual to the argument) ; P = Plate tectonics (simple geologic view of the world) We are given the following: C > P ; P We cannot derive C from what we have been given. If we think we have, then we have committed the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hence, simply because there are plate tectonics, it does not mean that Continental drift (the type contextual to this argument) is true. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
All the continents fitting together into one large supercontinent does not prove continental drift (in the sense that is described here). We have already established that Pangaea was real. Hence, to say that continental drift is true because of Pangaea is a logical fallacy. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I think the continental drift theory is true, because of how the Earth spins and the oceans flow. Europe and Asia had a history formed and they're still formed, it was called Eurasia. The Plate Tectonics also is the reason how Pangaea was formed, and mountains. The oceans were all one and it was called Pan thalassic ocean. Pangaea broke apart when it moved away two centimeters every year. The supercontinent moved away because of the Earth's rotation and the seaquakes or "Tsunamis" made it move a little each year. This paragraph is why I think Pangaea is true Side: Continental Drift
Continental drift. I have lots of reasons why I picked this. One The hypothesis asserts that the continents consist of lighter rocks that manner in which icebergs float on wateriest on heavier crustal. The other reason is that it is a reasonable scientific answer. An other answer could be that the continents moved every yard per century and the bible could be true but the only reason I did not pick that answer is because the true story is that he wanted to start the world all over again. But other than that I would have picked both. Side: Continental Drift
I am going with continental drift because neither the mantle nor the crust have water in them. The crust is made of rocks, soil, and seabed. The crust is beneath the oceans, not the other way around. The mantle is made of solid rock and super-heated molten rock. This disproves the flood theory because without the water, there can't be a flood. The continental drift theory makes sense because the molten rock part of the mantle is so hot that it can move, which would move the supercontinent. I can believe that the continents can move 1-10 cm a year because the mantle is still moving around. Going back to the flood theory, there were several other things that didn't make sense. The video explained how they worked, but didn't explain where they came from. It just said they happened. The pressurized rock that sprung up between the pieces of land didn't make sense. Since the land had moved out of the way, what was putting pressure on it? Also, they said that when the plates moved, they met resistance. Do they mean other plates or some unexplained force? I am stating that it was continental drift because of the above information. Leanna Bernish, 2nd period. Side: Continental Drift
Both of these theories could probably not be proven while we are still alive, but if I had to choose one it would have to be the continental drift theory. I think that the continental drift theory is more believable and has a few things I'd like to point out like the fact that the flood theory could probably not happen again. So if the continents move over time and scientists start to see it then that theory could be proven (if the continental drift theory is true it will be more likely to be proven). I think this theory is true because the earth is moving and the ocean is also moving which helps move the rock cycle. So because the rock cycle is happening it gives this theory more proof. So in conclusion I think that there is more proof on the continental drift theory. That is my argument on this matter. Side: Continental Drift
3
points
I honestly don't have an "argument" about the whole continental drift and the great flood thing because they both have 50% the reason why we have 7 continents. Without the great flood we wouldn't have had the continental drift and without the continental drift we wouldn't have our 7 continents like we do today. It all makes perfect sense (if you've seen Ice Age Continental Drift you'll know what I mean sort of)(Or the music video for "Without You" by: Usher) Side: Continental Drift
2
points
Well I think that the Pangaea theories is true but there's only two reasons I think it's real. One of my reasoning's is because if the flood theories are real then why isn't the crust that is on the coastal plain area weakening and breaking apart from the continent and start floating away? Also I believe that the Continental Drift theories are true because there are the same plant species and animals on different two continents. That's why I think that the CONTINENTAL DRIFT is true!! Side: Continental Drift
The continents move apart 1 yard per century. That means when geologist Alfred Wegner discovered Pangaea the continents were together. Over time the continents were moving. But they were moving at the speed of a snail. People didn't know that the land was separating. According to the plate-tectonics theory, scientists believe that Earth's surface is broken into a number of shifting plates, which average about 50 miles in thickness. The boundaries of lithosphere plates are active. Side: Continental Drift
2
points
2
points
I believe in the continental drift theory. My number one reason I believe in this theory is because I don't think a flood could be that big. Also there were pyramids that were not destroyed. If a flood was so large that it formed the Grand Canyon, it would have destroyed the pyramids. Another question I have is how could the animals make it back to their original habitats with a flood so big? The continental drift theory seems more realistic as to why this happened. Side: Continental Drift
I cant really say because none have yet been scientifically proven by anyone. Both sides seem possibly accurate, unsure. But if i HAD to pic one....probably continental drift. I read the articles, and the continental drift made a little more sence to me. I agree with Ms. Hardin, no one can be sure. Hopefully someone will understand what ACTUALLY happened someday. But I guess until then, no one can know. Side: Continental Drift
2
points
i think that the continental drift did happen because the plates are moving and if the flood flooded the whole world we wouldnt have have humans here. Pangea have been split by both rock or water but i dont think 40 days of water could seperate pangea. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
pangea could not be split by water. There is more prof on that we split by continental drift. Because we move a little bit every year. we might move as slow as a finger nail grows. i think the continental is the reason we are departed for the other 6 continents. Side: Continental Drift
2
points
it is reasonable that Pangaea was broken apart but I think it was hit by an asteroid and broke into the 7 continents. there is no way it was broken apart by a flood because in the story it says all he bad people did not live but humans became existing over 5000 years after so it was not possible for that to happen because there were no people in the first place only dinosaurs which relate to being killed by a HUMOUNGUS asteroid which also means that if that theory is correct then Pangaea was broken apart by an asteroid that probably was the same one that made dinosaurs extinct Side: Continental Drift
I believe in the continental drift because I think that land forms are still evolving. On the research links I read they stated that mountains and many other land forms were created when the flood happened. That would mean ALL land forms were created when the flood happened billions of years ago. There are many mountains that are coming up now, because of the plates shifting, and there has not been a global flood recently to have created the newly forming mountains. I think that the plates moved forming the 7 continents that we have today. On the video I watched it said all the moving of Pangaea happened very quickly. I do not think that Pangaea just all of a sudden split apart, I think it took many many years. That is why I support the continental drift rater than the flood theory. Side: Continental Drift
I think this is the correct theory because scientist said they found fossils of the same in different contenents. For example Africa and North America. They found things like plants and animals from some of the oldest ages. Scientists also said that the Earths plates move 5 to 10 inches every year. So if they move 5 to 10 inches every year then they could have split. So if they split they could have formed to the positions of the continents now since Pangea. That is why I think it is contenental drift. Side: Continental Drift
I think that the continental drift theory is correct. I think this because the continents may drift apart at a rate of one yard per century. If this is true, the continents would be sure to reach their present locations. Earth's plates only drift atop the mantle, so they could probably move easily. Plates can change size. They can be pushed together or pulled apart, as their margins are added to. This means that the plates could pull apart, dividing the super continent into different pieces. Side: Continental Drift
I do believe in the continental drift because over time as many important scientist and geologists have said that our continents move some centimeters each year. Even though it is only a great theory,i believe it is true because as years go by, continents move closer and closer. In fact, we know that we had continent/s for billions of years. technically if anyone knew the years, you could actually sort of see that there was a super continent called Pangea. It takes time, and many things happened before and after man kind. Even if you could someway put the continents together it wouldn't fit because of all the natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanoes which slit different plates and move them all around. i know this is long but i just want to explain my thinking. Side: Continental Drift
2
points
I support continental drift because if the earth flooded how did the earth ripple and how did the crack in the earth expand and have a bigger hole with more water coming out.? The continental drift makes the most sense because with the flood theory it states that the earth was covered with water and that the crack in the earth made all the Continent's drift. The problem with that theory is that the earth doesn't just divide really far apart because of some water. The water would have had to divide so far apart for like months or even years. Side: Continental Drift
I think the continental drift theory is true because based on research, plates move all the time, 24/7. Everyday that the earth rotates, the continents move along with it. I mean, look at the icebergs at the poles, they're moving every minute! Also, with all these occurrences happening everywhere (like earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). I also think it's because of the plate tectonics theory, mostly on the divergent plate boundaries. I believe the "super continent" was broken apart by the moving plates of the oceans in there boundaries. Therefore, the continental drift theory to me makes much more sense due to all the scientific research it has. Side: Continental Drift
2
points
I think it was the continental drift because I read that the continental drift broke it apart. I don't think it was flood because there would have been more land before all the continents formed for a flood to have happened. At one time all the continents were together called the Pangaea and that had to move to create our 7 continents now, there was a problem with the magnetic force of the mantle said scientist and that made it separate (the continental drift). Scientist also said that at one time when it was in continental drift two continents bumped into each other and created another continent. If that is true then there couldn't have been a flood because there would have only been 6 continents.Also scientist said that if there was a flood then all of land that we are on now would have been mountains because the part of the Earth that didn't go under had to be tall. Side: Continental Drift
I think the continental drift theory is more believable than the flood theory which has water shooting out of the earth. I could still believe that the continents moved about a couple of inches per year, because the continents have been on the earth for so long. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
1
point
When plates moved it could have effected Pangea. So that could be a reason that they drifted away. Volcanos could have formed underneath the continents to spread them apart. It probably did split apart because some people found plants/animals on differet continents. Some could have jumped on one then maybe others jumped on the other side. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I believe in the Continental drift because first of all it makes more sense. The reason i think its the continental drift is because the mantle makes the earths crust move so the super continent (Pangaea)would have separated. If you try to put all of the continents back together they look they would all fit together. Also if the flood theory was true how would all the plants,trees and insects survive the massive amount of water flooding their home? Thats why i believe in the continental drift because the flood theory doesn't make any scence! -Colby Reichenbach Period 3 Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I think the world was once a big Pangaea. The world was made up of a single continent through most of time , because I believe that the continents where once a Pangaea. Scientists believe that Earth's surface is broken into a number of shifting plates. The Pangaea began to break 200 million years ago all though this theory might not be true it still makes a lot of sense that the continents where all stuck together at of time . The super continent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents . Scientists believe that the new rift began due to a weakness in the Earth's crust. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
It's still happening, from that we can derive that it has happened in the past. We have physical proof of plate movement like earthquakes and volcanoes, and can map plate movement. All this is strong & solid evidence for continental drift. Other evidence is that the continents fix together (South America, Africa) by shape, rock type and fossil record. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
Continental drift. I picked this because i think the oceanic plates started seperating. That might be one reason of seperating pangea. Another thing could be the ocean tides. They probably were very very very strong and seperated the continent.First of all how can a flood seperate the continent?I mean it doesnt make since to me and i dnt know about you.So Continental drift makes more since. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I think that the continental drift caused the pangea separation of our now known 7 continents. i think that mostly the plates in the earth caused the separation because they moved too mush at one time and are still moving now. another reason i do not believe in the flood theory is that if there was a huge flood on the whole world once why wasn't there another flood within these time periods? i think that the continental drift did happen because of all moving plates and of all of the other scientist that say i is true. Side: Continental Drift
I say continental Drift because our plates are always moving each year. Also because when the super-continent split or divided animals fell through and there is now there is fossils in the ocean. Also because in one of the articles it said the earths crust it not a solid shell. The plates that divide the super continental move 1 to 10 centimeters a year. And also are 20-250 miles thick (80-400km). I also think divergent plates caused it too. Since divergent divides. Also they drifted away. Side: Continental Drift
I think it's continental drift because scientists think the Earth's crust is separated into plates. The plates are at least 50 miles thick. I think the plates moved to form the seven continents. It would take along time for the plates to move because it takes one year for a plate to move a couple of inches. Most active volcanoes are on shifting plates called plate boundaries volcano. The peripheral areas of the Pacific Ocean Basin, containing the boundaries of several plates, are dotted with many active volcanoes that form the so-called Ring of Fire. The Ring gives excellent examples of plate-boundary volcanoes including Mount St. Helens. Side: Continental Drift
I believe that the continental drift more likely caused the continents to split apart. Scientists have used modern day technology to estimate that the continents moved and still move only a few centimeters a year. If the continents moved 45 mph, stated in the flood theory, wouldn't they still be moving quickly? The slowly moving plates also explain why mountains and other landforms can still be formed today, instead of all of them being formed at once, millions of years ago. The plates explain why we have earthquakes and volcanoes as well as mountains. I believe in the flood and Noah's Ark, but not that it caused the continents to form. The water from the flood could have weakened the fault lines, causing the continents to break apart easier during the continental drift. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I believe we should think that the Continental drift theory is true because of the information backing it up. The earth's crust is make of tectonic plates. Because of the mantle, the gooey substance allows the tectonic plates to move. In a period of time The Plates began to move a few inches per year and overtime the plates have broken into the seven continents. All seven of the continents fit together if you attempt to put them together. I disagree with the flood theory because the water could not have possibly just come over the crust of the Earth and flood the Earth. ~ Written by Lashayla S. 4th Period Side: Continental Drift
1
point
~ Written by Lashayla S. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I think that the contenintal theory is most accurate because of many reasons. My first reason is that the plates could most likely not drift so far in such a short amount of time. Also even though the crust is the thinnest layer of the earth. It is still quite deep compared to the perspective of humans. Therfore I don't think it would make sense for Pangea to split apart so face in the short time of 40 days. Also I think that the continents would be moving so fast that the middle could possibly concave and that obviously did not happen . Also I do see how Pangea could break apart and move about 2 centimeters due to the seaquakes which could be more likely to happen. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
According to the theory of continental drift, the world was a single continent that eventually separated into seven different continents and floated away from one another. In 1912, German meteorologist Alfred Wegener hypothesized that the continents are light rocks that lay heavy on heavy crustal material. Scientists believe that earth's surface is broken into a number of moving plates, which results to about 50 miles of thickness. These plates are relatively close to one another above a hotter, deeper,and mobile zone each year. Most of the worlds volcanoes that are active are located near boundaries with shifting plates are called plate boundaries. The peripheral areas of the Pacific Ocean Basin, are dotted with many active volcanoes that form the "Ring of Fire". Intraplate volcanoes form roughly linear chains in the interior of some oceanic plates. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
The peripheral of the Pacific ocean basin has a dotted line of active volcanoes called, "The Ring Of Fire". Another fact is that some of the same fossil records are found on two different continents! Another fact is that the continets move about 1 yard every centry. Cody K. Side: Continental Drift
I think that the the Continental Drift is what really happened. Some sciences believe that the continents move 5cm every year. Also earth quakes my cause the continents to drift to new places on the globe. The flood theory is also very possible because the crust could have been week and the water could have washed it away.But the reason I think the continental drift happened is because like I said the continents move 5 cm a year. Side: Continental Drift
The theory of the continental drift is that long ago there use to be only on continent. That continent is now called the Pangaea. At one point the Pangaea separated and drifted to what now are our seven continents. Scientist say that the continents move nearly a yard per century. which means that the continents must have started to move long ago to get to were they are now. That is what I think is the continental drift theory. I think that the continental drift theory is how the Pangaea ended up becoming our seven continents. This argument is from Karla Medina 4th period, Mrs. Hardin. Side: Continental Drift
I believe in the continental drift theory. I believe this because the continental plates are still moving. back the the ice age was an important role in this i believe . Because the water froze up then when it melted there was a huge rush of water . that rush of water may of impacted on the athosphere or crust causing it so shatter. then with the shock wave of the shatter they / the continants rode their way outta here. and that is my theory. thanks bye. Side: Continental Drift
I think that the flood drifted us apart? Why?! Well I'll tell you! I think the flood caused it because you see water can be very strong and very weak and for it to be raining for forty days and nights well that's strong!! I also think because there was a lot of creaks in the gravel that the water was so strong and pulled it 7 different ways! It was kinda like a tide or a tsunami falling from out the sky! Well those are caused by the moons gravitational pull. So I think that forty days and forty nights had a really strong pull ! Enough to make the seven continents to what they are today ! And that's what I agree with ! Do you agree? Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I believe in the continental drift theory. That theory suggests that, over time, a single continent slowly separated and formed the continents we have today. In defense of this theory, I think that the flood theory seems a bit more based on the bible instead of scientific facts.The continental drift theory seems simpler. And that seems the more logical choice. Furthermore, the continental drift is more accepted. Finally the flood theory doesn't go to lengths about how volcanoes were actually formed, while quite a bit of the plate-tectonics theory has things about volcanoes. Side: Continental Drift
I choose continental drift because in my opinion is a very cool theory. I like that there is so many theory's for one thing. I think it is cool learning about continental drift because it tells us more about how the earth is created and things that helped make it. Continental drift is the theory of pangea and how it disconnected to what is now. Side: Continental Drift
|
I believe that we should think the flood theory for many reasons. The first one is that I don't see how the continental drift would happen. Especially that it would just come apart and take, like what, 20 billion year s to depart from each other? NO! I'm a christian, and I believe that a GIGANTIC flood, would come on Pangaea and wreck it, make the water go into the cracks, through out Pangaea and make the 5, then later on 7 continents. That would be the reason that Pangaea turned into what is like today, and has been since for many thousand years. Don't be a hater. Be a true christian, and put the continental drift crap, AWAY. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
The instructions say not to put emotions in this and to base it solely on research. Also, you have to keep in mind that these are gigantic landforms that can't move to their current locations in an hour. Molten rock in the mantle is also not as fast flowing as say a rushing creek. Side: Continental Drift
Well, yes, I say to back all claims with research. However, remember that since neither side can be completely proven, there is part that is going to be based on opinion, and therefore be emotion based. Emotion is Ok, because it creates passion, as long as it is backed by some sort of data, research, or information Side: Continental Drift
1
point
1
point
So you believe a flood separated Pangea. Ok, so the fact that Pangea existed you agree with. Ok. Pangea, which was together BILLIONS of years ago. The bible assumes for an earth less than ten THOUSAND years old with a flood occurring, say, 6,000 years ago? How the hell do those fit together? I don't care if you're a Christian. Your stupid beliefs and holy doctrine don't dwarf science. They can't possibly even match up. Where does the water come from for a global flood huh? It gets poofed into existence I suppose? Real scientific. I'm sure you have tons of evidence. Oh wait, no you don't. And a 600 year old man builds a boat that can't possibly fit all those animals on it. How so the animals get to the boat then back to their habitats after? And what about the plants that get destroyed under water? And the fish who can't survive in brackish or salty water? The flood is a joke. Side: Continental Drift
3
points
I believe the flood theory because there is written history of it and it explains lots of things like why there are ocean trenches, big mountains, canyons (like the Grand Canyon), why Pangea separated, and why it separated so quickly. I don't think that the 7 continents formed in a few billion years. The flood theory makes more sense. -Aster Shear Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
Pangea existed billions of years ago. The biblical flood is said to have happened 6,000ish years ago give or take ASSUMING the earth was 10k or less years old and the bible mentions nothing of a supercontinent. The flood theory is bullshit. It doesn't work Side: Continental Drift
2
points
I think the flood theory is true because the earth is cracked.So when the flood happened it could easily make the continent spread apart.Just like weathering to a rock.The Continental drift would take forever.When the water would get in the cracks it would wear down the edges so the continents would spread apart.The flood theory definitely has more supporting details.It makes sense because of the wearing down of rocks,so just the same with continents. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
As a geology-nut, millions of years mean nothing to me. The idea that everything was created in far too much less than that is kind of strange. You seem to think that landmasses float, or that the ocean hits the mantle... I'll clarify. There is no way in the seven hells (okay, maybe in the second hell, but dimensions are not the discussion here) that water can drive continental drift. Water can erode landmasses, make the oceanic plates slightly heavier, get into magma and lower the melting point- and that's nothing to do with flooding. Side: Continental Drift
2
points
The supercontinent was broken apart by massive flood waters coming from the cracks in the earth's crust. There was more than half of the ocean underneath the crust. The Bible says that it took 48 days for the cycle to be complete. This flood happened over 5000 years ago. The water coming out looking like a fountain. The flood formed mountains and valleys on the ocean floor. All of these things still last today. Morgan B. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I think that this is true because of all of the pressure that caused the crack.Now it would make sense if there was that much water under the crust.But there is a flaw about this theory....What continent would move 45 miles per hour even under the pressure of the water?That seems a lot to me.Other than that it's seems like a good theory like the water rushing out of the crack.Wait a second if there was water under the crust does that mean it was floating?If it was then i could understand how they moved.Also if they were floating i see how they stopped.The continents stopped because the water must have stopped coming out and it got stuck to the mantle.Really does make you think huh? Josh Gentry 4 Period Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I now want to cry. Please, please read up on continental drift. Seems a lot- it is a ridiculous amount, as the fastest one is 103mm/year relative to Africa. Even under the pressure of water? Water under the crust? What happens when we get water under the crust? Stratovolcanoes happen. (Water lowers temp of surrounding magma, causing it to rise and penetrate the crust) Your theory isn't possible. Side: Continental Drift
I think that the flood theory is true. i think the water broke down the land. the land then drifted away from each other in different directions. the water stretched the land out from pressure. it drifted away so fast is because how stretched it was. kind of like a snap in a rubber band. when you snap a rubber band it quickly shoots away from each snapped side. it makes sense that the water would shoot up into the atmosphere because of all the pressure. Avery Brown 1st Period Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
I think the Flood theory was real because of how the Earth's Crust cracked. When it cracked water from underneath the Earth's Layers opened and flooding occurred. The crack made the supercontinent break apart and started to move further away. It was moving at 45 mph per our. Know it is known as the 7 continents. The Earth's crust was cracked about 3 miles wide and 10 miles deep. That's my side of the Theory! /hope you enjoyed! Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I believe the flood theory. The main reason i believe it is because the flood theory has more evidence to back it up. For example at the bottom of the ocean there are huge trenches and volcanoes because of the flood theory. It also explains how the frozen woolly mammoths became frozen.The Continental drift theory makes no sense to me either. I don't get how the continents don't brake apart fast because that doesn't seem possible. Even if it was i don't get how it would move at a rate of about one yard per century. It also explains the mid oceanic ridge that swoops around earth.~molly patella Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
0
points
You're in a science class and you're really gonna bring up the bible as a legitimate source? What school are you going to? In Kansas probably. Anyways, Pangea (the supercontinent) existed billions of years ago. The biblical flood is said to have occured 6,000 years ago give or take and that's assuming the earth is 10k years old or less which it obviously isn't. The flood theory is impossible. Side: Continental Drift
I think the flood theory is more believable that the Continental Drift. If floods this day and age can take down whole buildings and stuff like that, then I think even heavier floods that were very strong could little by little tear the Pangaea apart. Eventually, the supercontinent couldn't carry the weight of all that water and let go of its surroundings. So now the supercontinent broke up into parts, which we now know to this day and age as the 7 continents now. Back then when it did break up, the continents moved SOOOOO much faster than they do today, which is known to be about 1-10 cm. of length that they move each year!!! So this was my argument about The Continental Drift vs. The Flood Theory. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I think the Flood Theory made more sense to me because i don't think the landmasses can just separate just like that. I think the flood when it came out and killed a lot of animals and plants and it was also probably very powerful and pulled the landmasses apart. I have to go with the flood theory because not did that only make sense to me but it had me thinking which would would be the most possible reason to this theory? Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
1
point
I think this because it seems more reasonable to me than the land moving 4cm a year. The water could have gone into the cracks of pangea weather out the rocks and cause them to split. Than when the flood was still happening the force of the water kept pushing the broken up land forms to were they are today Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
Plate tectonics and continental drift are both true. However, to the extent to which it is being applied here requires an assumption of uniformitarianism. This is very similar to the theory of evolution, in biology. We see evolution, but we cannot prove that everything came from a single common ancestor, unless we assume for uniformitarianism. Now, uniformitarianism is defined as follows: the philosophy believing that all things happening as they always have, or the philosophy prescribed upon the notion to which all processes that we see today are the same that have happened in the past, and are the same that will happen in the future. However, Stephen Hawking declares that for the origin of the universe to make sense, the Laws of Nature would have had to break down. He says, "Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang" (http://www.hawking.org.uk/ However, what we see in certain religious documents is that we have eye-witness testimony. The Bible states that God caused a flood, which drastically changed the world that we see today. 2 Peter 3:1-7 -- "This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." This verse was around hundreds of years before uniformitarianism came about. This prophesy, hence, has been proven and displays that the natural philosophy prescribed to in modern times by "scientists" is false. Not only do we see things like eye-witness testimony to the flood, but we have scientific evidence to back it up! On mountain tops we see fossilized sea creatures. We have dinosaur bones; lizards grow their entire lives, which means that dinosaurs could very easily be different sorts of primitive lizards that lived long lives, since the Bible states the pre-flood humans had long lives as well. We have rivers cutting through the tops of hills and mountains (the type which do not create V-shaped rivers), which indicates that water levels were a lot higher than we have thought them to be. There is so much more! Look up sediment deposition in the Grand Canyon and so much more! Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
There is no evidence against plate tectonic theory, that the 'uniform' rule has not been followed for hundreds of millions of years. There is evidence that it has been such though- with plates such as the Kula, which have completely or almost completely subducted. What Peter said was just a logical conclusion. Your proof is not proof, just ignorance of the mechanics of constructive plate margins, old sea beds and tilting. Look at the lines on these rocks. They're likely diagonal. Side: Continental Drift
There is no evidence against plate tectonic theory, that the 'uniform' rule has not been followed for hundreds of millions of years. I never said that plate tectonics theory was false. There is also no proof for the uniformity of nature. There is evidence that it has been such though- with plates such as the Kula, which have completely or almost completely subducted. What about it? Simply because it is uniform in the world today does not mean it was in the past. What Peter said was just a logical conclusion. It was the logical conclusion to assert that scoffers will be naturalists and that they will be uniformitarians, when the philosophy hadn't been thought up yet, and that they will reject the flood, in relation to these beliefs? Wow. You give Peter a lot of credit for someone who was merely a fisherman. Your proof is not proof, just ignorance of the mechanics of constructive plate margins, old sea beds and tilting. Look at the lines on these rocks. They're likely diagonal. Please take a geology class. Side: Continental Drift
1
point
I think the flood theory because the flood might have softened the crust and plates causing them to break. Also, how else were canyons and oceans and many other things created? Weathering works the same way. Over time the crust was weathered to the point where it softened and cracked. There is always the chance that the continental drift and the flood theory are both responsible but I support the flood theory more because of canyons and things like that. Also I do believe in Noah's Ark and all but after reading the articles the flood theory made more sense. Some people are wondering where the water come from first? But if the species of animals were going to survive then there was already rain. Then over time all that rain softened the crust and then a flood came and finished off the weathering. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I actually don't support this so called Flood Theory because its not like bunches of water just randomly gets stored in the earth. It's not like you just see volcanoes and earthquakes spitting out water everywhere. I mean where does the water that is in the earth get stored? Come on folks, but cases doing with the Flood Theory and God coming into this, i do believe in this because of Noah's ark, but still, WHERE DOES ALL THE WATER COME FROM????? Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
i think that the theory about the flood is true . I believe that the water pressure stretched the crust . Then the pressure of the water was so strong that it sprung up and flooded the earth and then produced rain . Then everything froze on the earth.After that i believe that the pressure then created mountains. Also that the sediments spread around the earth and created fossils. And after the continental plates stopped moving and the water went into the large basins , the earth had been moved into the way it is today. Gabriela 3rd period Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
i think that the theory about the flood is true . I believe that the water pressure stretched the crust . Then the pressure of the water was so strong that it sprung up and flooded the earth and then produced rain . Then everything froze on the earth.After that i believe that the pressure then created mountains. Also that the sediments spread around the earth and created fossils. And after the continental plates stopped moving and the water went into the large basins , the earth had been moved into the way it is today. Gabriela 3rd period Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
I believe that the flood theory is true indeed. I don't believe that water can just come and drift away landforms into continents. I know that I could be wrong or right, because it can't be proven. But I still believe that my opinion sticks out. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
I also believe that the continental drift would take FOREVER! 😝 Because it wouldn't be like to be like.... BOOM, continents. It definitely would be a process. I believe that water got in to the cracks of the landform, and eventually froze and broke the land form into seven different pieces, known as continents. This process is kind of like the rock cycle. How water gets into Rocks, freezes and eventually breaks apart. Though this will take a long time it would take less time than the Continental drift. Though that's just my strong belief......., nothing can be precisely proven. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I agree with lane. The flood theory would be a better option because water can't just come in and split up landforms into a continent in a day. Although water can do that there has to be enough water (with the flood theory has) and it would take longer than just a day. I also believe that if the continental drift was true, we would not be here today because it would have taken to long. Also another thing to prove that it would have to be the flood theory is that water would have to break down things, it couldn't just magically move them. And that process alone takes a very long time. Well that's my opinion and even though we really don't know that's what I think. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I think that it is both. because well in the bible God tells noah the earth is going to flood and all that.Well i think there was this big shake all around the world and that caused the earth to breaking apart. then a big tsunamis hit all around the world and that caused the flood.Soon after it started raining.Then it rained 40 days and nights without stopping. then after it stoped rianing all of the rain dried up on land. There was big oceans spliting every thing up. Thats how i think it is both. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I think the Flood Theory ( Hydroplate ) is what broke up the supercontinent. Before the flood, water was underneath the earth's crust. The increasing pressure caused the water to break through the crust breaking it into plates. Where these plates broke and how they moved is the reason the earth looks like it does. This includes oceans, lakes, mountains, canyons, ridges, and continents. The water that exploded from the earth went so high that it froze into ice crystals which then produced large ice dumps. This buried and froze a lot of animals and their homes. - Tyler W. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I think the flood theory. because when there is a lot of water there is a lot of pressure and I think that the pressure began to build up and eventually just snapped and the supercontinent snapped into 8 different planets planets.
CANAAN, 4th PERIOD (\/) :p :{ \/ Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
I believe that the crack's in the earth's crust caused it to separate. There are also believes that it began to separate 200 years ago. It was moving about 45 mph. It started forming 300 years ago. Everybody should know that the earth's crust has water inside in there. So it would start coming out the earth's crust then it took about 200 years ago. There goes my believe hope that Mrs. Hardin likes it. ._. Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
I believe the flood theory because it makes more sense. Why would the continents come apart, and then stop? This is why we have mountains/volcanos. I understand the continental drift, but why would it stop all of a sudden? Does anybody ever think about this? Did the convection currents stop in the mantle? I side with the flood theory because of the reasons. -Luke Vlahos Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
1
point
I believe in the flood theory. The flood theory has many reasons to back it up but i will only name a few. First of all i'm a christian and in the bible it talks about a giant flood. I do NOT believe in the continental drift theory because how in the world did the earth just randomly split appart out of nowhere. Just think about it do you really believe the earth just split apart for no reason? The flood theory says a crack in the earths crust makes a huge eruption from so much presure under the ground. Soon afterwards the water started rising and became a flood. The flood made the earths crack start to erode the lnd sliding the plates which formed mountains and trenches. Written by: Annaleigh Side: Flood Theory (Hydroplate)
and there is a lot of trenches and volcanoes under water. that made it spread. it increased pressure under water so it made the crust stretch apart. with all the pressure the crust started to crack. the crust became completely cracked and they separated. then they started to move and that is how we now have 7 continents. -Grace b. 3rd period Side: Continental Drift
|
