Sea floor spreading proving Earth more than 6K yo.

RJ, how do you account for the fact that we can literally see the seafloor between Africa and South America spreading apart day by day and the line of that spread goes thousands of miles to a time when Africa and South America were part of one continent.

Do you think it happened faster back in your fairy tale world of 6000 years ago?

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ, how do you account for the fact that we can literally see the seafloor between Africa and South America spreading apart day by day and the line of that spread goes thousands of miles to a time when Africa and South America were part of one continent.

Do you think it happened faster back in your fairy tale world of 6000 years ago?

Yes, the rate varied.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ, how do you account for the fact that we can literally see the seafloor between Africa and South America spreading apart day by day and the line of that spread goes thousands of miles to a time when Africa and South America were part of one continent.

Do you think it happened faster back in your fairy tale world of 6000 years ago?

Or the world could have been created 6k years ago with the continents 6k years closer together and just looking like they had once fitted nice and neatly millions of years before that.

Young Earth Creationism is just Last Thursday-ism without the ambition.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, the rate varied.

The Instructor

And you know that how?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know that how?

He knows it because it keeps his understanding of the Bible intact.

sonhouse, I don't think you should aim to become to the Spirituality Forum what RJ has become to the Science Forum. I object to RJHinds attempting to subvert the language in the science forum into a Biblical language - that is not what the Science Forum is for, but the flip side of that is that the language of science isn't really applicable here - except in a thread such as "How do you reconcile your faith with your career in Science?" or deliberately provocatively titled threads. The posts one makes in the debates should be in the terms appropriate to the Forum. This does not preclude arguing an atheist line here, it's just you can't spend too much time justifying it scientifically.

Originally posted by DeepThought
sonhouse, I don't think you should aim to become to the Spirituality Forum what RJ has become to the Science Forum. I object to RJHinds attempting to subvert the language in the science forum into a Biblical language - that is not what the Science Forum is for, but the flip side of that is that the language of science isn't really applicable here - exce ...[text shortened]... n atheist line here, it's just you can't spend too much time justifying it scientifically.

I would tend to agree with this.

While I have no problem discussing things from a scientific perspective here,
I wouldn't (and don't) bring science up as a topic starter in this forum.

If hinds wants to start 50 threads on evolution vs creationism then by all means
shoot him down with science.

But I suspect/hope most people here think that that's a done to death stupid
argument for spirituality let alone science forums.

Hinds is probably never going to drop his favourite subject.
But that's not a good reason to encourage him.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would tend to agree with this.

While I have no problem discussing things from a scientific perspective here,
I wouldn't (and don't) bring science up as a topic starter in this forum.

If hinds wants to start 50 threads on evolution vs creationism then by all means
shoot him down with science.

But I suspect/hope most people here think that t ...[text shortened]... y never going to drop his favourite subject.
But that's not a good reason to encourage him.

I think the nature of scientific and religious belief -- the differences in their history (dare I say evolution), psychology and purposes/arenas served, for example, would be an interesting subject to explore without dwelling on the superiority of one over the other in any exclusionary sense. But some people's posts would have to be ignored.

Originally posted by JS357
I think the nature of scientific and religious belief -- the differences in their history (dare I say evolution), psychology and purposes/arenas served, for example, would be an interesting subject to explore without dwelling on the superiority of one over the other in any exclusionary sense. But some people's posts would have to be ignored.

I thought it would be ok to pursue the issue of young Earthers, since it is a religious stance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ, how do you account for the fact that we can literally see the seafloor between Africa and South America spreading apart day by day and the line of that spread goes thousands of miles to a time when Africa and South America were part of one continent.

Do you think it happened faster back in your fairy tale world of 6000 years ago?

There is no way you could know one way or another unless you watched
the whole process, a current rate today does not mean it was always the
same rate in the past.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know that how?

Because the worldwide flood happened about 4500 years ago and the continents had not divided until after that catastrophic event, according to the Holy Bible. It is then deduced by common sense that the rate of division or separation must have varied.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Because the worldwide flood happened about 4500 years ago and the continents had not divided until after that catastrophic event, according to the Holy Bible. It is then deduced by common sense that the rate of division or separation must have varied.

The Instructor

Continental drift is driven by convection currents in the earth's mantle. It is a sort of heat engine, to run faster more heat has to be provided and that has to come from the earths core. To get the separation between America and Europe we have now (Greenwich is 0 longitude New York 73 West ~ 8,000km) in less than 4,500 years you need the continents moving at speeds of the order of 2km/year or ~200cm/hour. Had India and Asia collided at that speed within the last 6,000 years a large part of the sub-continent would have been turned to molten rock, and the Himalayas wouldn't form properly.

In the mean time that has slowed to of the order of millimetres per year. The convection rate is proportional to the temperature difference between the top of the core and the crust. So you'd need the core to be 1,000,000 times hotter than it is now. This is not physical, you cannot have this without invoking magic - in which case you can just teleport the entire continent to its new position, this makes more sense if you don't want to have to explain why there aren't molten mountains everywhere. By the way raising and lowering the sea floor won't work as the continental crust is chemically different to the oceanic crust.

Edit: As an afterthought - I'm fairly sure the Bible does not state that all land was concentrated in a single super-continent until after the flood.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Continental drift is driven by convection currents in the earth's mantle. It is a sort of heat engine, to run faster more heat has to be provided and that has to come from the earths core. To get the separation between America and Europe we have now (Greenwich is 0 longitude New York 73 West ~ 8,000km) in less than 4,500 years you need the continents m t state that all land was concentrated in a single super-continent until after the flood.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

(Genesis 1:9 NKJV)

If the waters are gathered together into one place, doesn't that imply that the land is also in one place. What am I missing here that allows for the land to already be divided into continents?

The waters were standing above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.

(Psalm 104:6-9 NASB)

This must refer to the worldwide flood of Noah's day and it says the mountains rose higher than they were before and the valleys sank allowing the waters to find a place that they (the waters) would no longer be able to cover the whole earth again.

Maybe this was when the so-called continental drift began or maybe it started with a continental sprint, since the mountains rose higher. Have you considered the volcanic eruptions that probably took place both above and under water?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

(Genesis 1:9 NKJV)

If the waters are gathered together into one place, doesn't that imply that the land is also in one place. What am I missing here that allows for the land to already be divided into continents?
...[text shortened]... at they (the waters) would no longer be able to cover the whole earth again.

The Instructor[/b]

Total dribble. Fairy tales based on legends. There are folk tales from the Aborigines in Australia of floods of the coast but it sure as hell did not cover all of Australia, just rising seas as it always does in a climate change to hotter weather. We are already seeing the umteenth repeat of that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Total dribble. Fairy tales based on legends. There are folk tales from the Aborigines in Australia of floods of the coast but it sure as hell did not cover all of Australia, just rising seas as it always does in a climate change to hotter weather. We are already seeing the umteenth repeat of that.

How could you know that the written account is incorrect? You were not there.

The Instructor