Well, the definitely used geologic terminology. But that's about as fact based as I (and my co-workers at the office) could determine it was. Nice graphics, and the narrator had a nice speaking voice. But just because he SAID there was no subduction, he never really addressed any evidence to support that theory (the fact of the continents fitting togethor, once being joined and such is all well established). Whereever did you find this video?

[quote:="dawn05211977"]Well, the definitely used geologic terminology. But that's about as fact based as I (and my co-workers at the office) could determine it was. Nice graphics, and the narrator had a nice speaking voice. But just because he SAID there was no subduction, he never really addressed any evidence to support that theory (the fact of the continents fitting togethor, once being joined and such is all well established). Whereever did you find this video?

Well I didn't really come here to discuss if this is possible or not, because I don't have a professional background in science. I was just more interested the response from archaeologists. It seems to me there are lots of similarities to be found along the coastlines that match up with correspoding coastlines on other continents... Likewise their are tons of artifacts and stores and legends that would all seem to come together and make sense if this were true...ie the Americas and the Orient. Here's an example:

http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/content.asp?EvidenceID=203

yeah thats not true at all. Im sure you have heard there are many ways to skin a cat before. Same as there are many different ways you can say the earth evolved. There are subduction zones, there is one off of the coast of california. The reason the oceanic crust is younger, if thats even true, is because its subducting. The reason why the older stuff is on the continental crust is because it has been uplifted due to the plates colliding into each other. Also, he mentions the trees around the arctic ring; trees dont grow past a certain lattitude all over the world because they cant, the reason why tree around the circle are the same is because they can grow in that habitat. Also glacial winds can circulate till all over the world and the same can be applied to spores and pollen.

He also seemed to not be able to grasp the idea that the more pressure applied to something the more dense it would be. That is how the mantle and the core are so dense, the core is also solid due to the pressure within the center of the earth. According to what he is saying, the earth is losing pressure and expanding some how.

But ive just lost my train of thought but this clip is def. a load of you know what. I think he must have been friends with Vine Deloria or apart of the young earth creationism doctrine.

"I was just more interested the response from archaeologists. It seems to me there are lots of similarities to be found along the coastlines that match up with correspoding coastlines on other continents... "


IMHO, it would appear that you would need to speak to a geologist. As material culture really doesn't extend back to the time you are talking about, IMHO, a archaeologist would not be able to help you.

[quote:="rtx2"]"I was just more interested the response from archaeologists. It seems to me there are lots of similarities to be found along the coastlines that match up with correspoding coastlines on other continents... "


IMHO, it would appear that you would need to speak to a geologist. As material culture really doesn't extend back to the time you are talking about, IMHO, a archaeologist would not be able to help you.

You guys dig stuff up, right?

[quote:="Dwarmour"]yeah thats not true at all. Im sure you have heard there are many ways to skin a cat before. Same as there are many different ways you can say the earth evolved. There are subduction zones, there is one off of the coast of california. The reason the oceanic crust is younger, if thats even true, is because its subducting. The reason why the older stuff is on the continental crust is because it has been uplifted due to the plates colliding into each other. Also, he mentions the trees around the arctic ring; trees dont grow past a certain lattitude all over the world because they cant, the reason why tree around the circle are the same is because they can grow in that habitat. Also glacial winds can circulate till all over the world and the same can be applied to spores and pollen.

He also seemed to not be able to grasp the idea that the more pressure applied to something the more dense it would be. That is how the mantle and the core are so dense, the core is also solid due to the pressure involved in the center of the earth. According to what he is saying, the earth is losing pressure and expanding some how.

But ive just lost my train of thought but this clip is def. a load of you know what. I think he must have been friends with Vine Deloria or apart of the young earth creationism doctrine.

How can you say it's a load if the continents match up together on the east side? Are you a geologist? The only thing that's a load is the current theory of evolution. Despite the strange silence in the media, molecular biology has killed it. Random mutations are out and biased, nonrandom variation is in. Natural selection is out on the level of the individual and now only recognized as functional on the level of the population -- which destroys Neo-darwinism -- as you will see here:

Computational and Analytical Molecular Evolution Lab at CARB

http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

And since Neo-darwinism is dead, it proves that animals could not evolve from a single bacteria-like organism, as has been the story. Instead of natural selection adapting individuals to their environment, it's individuals that adapt themselves to the environment. This explains why no long, gradual sequences are found in the fossil record.

No, I'm not a geologist, I minored in it in college and had to learn of the evolution and progression of the planet and tectonics.

All the continents were togethor when it was pangea, then it split into 2, Laurasia which consisted of N. America, asia, and Europe; and Gondwanaland that had all the rest. That is why the sides match up.

As for evolution of organisms, i am def. not an expert. As far as individuals I would say the only animal that has used culture to evolve to its environment would be the genus Homo, maybe late Australipithines. Evolutionary theory is still strong and explaining alot of things. Natural selection works from the individual but new traits aren't going to be popping up in species from one generation from the next, its the combination of time and genes then i would say and long, gradual sequences arent always going to be found because it takes all the right circumstances for things to become fossilized.

Technically, the continents as we know them were "linked togethor" at least three times, not only during the Pangea event we all commonly know. So yes, they can be matched up. However, I don't think the movement of the continents is the issue here. I think the problem is in understanding what an archaeologist does. Archaeology is a subdivsion of anthropology. Anthropology involves the study of humans. Since humans (nor our evolutionary ancestors) were around to witness the movement of the continents, this shouldn't have much bearing on how we "dig stuff up." Your question might be better posed on a paleontology or geologic based website.

Well said Dawn. Paleontologists have found that many species of dinosaur and their habitats in New Jersey match those recovered in western Africa, so Hawk this may have a bearing on Paleontologists and geologists, but archaeologists deal with species that are far to young to have existed during the time in which the continents were one and then split!

I agree that the topic being discussed is beyond the scope of archaeology and I don't for one moment actually believe what is being shown in the video but...

Lets just assume (as a good scientist, one can never discount anything outright without carefully weighing the available evidence) that the earth is in fact expanding and that the continents fit nicely together in the past because the circumference of the earth was in fact smaller. With this hypothesis we are left with three (I am sure there are more but for brevity lets just look at these three) very interesting issues that need to be addressed for this theory to be a plausible explaination. Two of them have to do with the mechanics of a smaller earth and one has to do with a significant resource issue.

The Mechanics problems:
For those of you who took Mechanics as an undergrad think back to what you learned about rotation and gravity. I admit these are very coarse calculations with a lot of assumptions but they give the idea. The major assumption for these calculations is how much smaller the circumference of the earth was when the continents were together. To be conservative i estimated (using google earth) the distance between the eastern tip of South America and where it looks as though it could fit into the western edge of Africa. this lends itself to the smallest change in circumference. Any other changes would result in the scale of the following problems being larger then what I put forth.

Problem 1
When rotating bodies get smaller their rotational velocity increases. Think about watching a figure skater. When they want to spin faster they pull their arms in towards their body and when they want to slow down they spread their arms out.

If the earth's circumference was shrunk so that the continents fit together the rotational velocity would increase such that each day would only be about 21 hours long. This would add around 45 extra days to a year. While this doesn't sound like much and i am not a plant expert. I would imagine that such a dramatic change would likely cause plants some issues.

Problem 2
The force of gravity would also increase if the earth had a smaller circumferences then it currently does. Assuming the earth had a constant mass (and there is no reason to think that it didn't) and the same change in circumference as in the first problem, the force of gravity would have been about 1.3 times what it is now. This is quite a significant change. This means that if something weighs 100 pounds now, in the past that same object would have weighed 130 pounds. This i am sure would have had a significant negative effect on not just plants but on the mega-fauna that roamed the plant in the past.

For Problem number 3

Where did the water go?

Given that the earth's current surface is 3/4 water and in the movie the continents were connected in such a way that there were no oceans, one must wonder where the water went. The only option I can think of is that the entire planet was covered in water (either ice or liquid) which would preclude the ability for life during that time.

Early chemical systems, proto-cellular or fullerene-like bodies capable of complex, sequential-parallel negative/positive feedback loop self-regulation, are the NON-LIVING precursors of cellular organisms, which are composites of composites surviving by occupying oxygen-adapted prokaryotic organisms. This is the origin of the frankencell (and also the frankenword, by extensional regression), otherwise known as the eukaryote. Living microstructures, genetically and histologically, have changed very little since the Archaean period, with genetic material only varying by sequential differences that are primarily additive. The emergence of macrostructure is what creationists confuse with intelligent design, but what sort of designer takes billions of years to get it right? The only designer is in Milankovitch cycles , cosmic rays, comets, asteroids, and consequent critical disruption of equilibria.

“God” is an awesome god among fetishes NOT because Darwin was not entirely correct about the processes of genetics and the lineages of species, but because anything at all could exist in the first place. Theism is strengthened by death-fear, and then for creationists, in the midst of scientific evidence derived from nature, theism is reduced to its theodicy only. The core fantasy of the judging “just” is that trivialization and violation of faith that dictates the will of God, in the name of God, which is itself a satanic behavior. For these righteous sinners, it is difficult to admit such blasphemy as that we have no privilege, consistent with the Christian bible, to watch unbelievers suffer throughout eternity.
Faith is so weak nowadays, demonstrated by the rise of tele-church avarice (faith without works), that half-educated obscurantists must spend time and money disproving what they, at bottom, fear intensely: all along, natural selection can actually confirm observations made by the author(s) of genesis, in that
1) the fossil record was identified in prehistory and early historic periods throughout the world as biological in origin, but of undetermined age,
2) the Law of superposition could be formulated from observation of any reconstruction/excavation practice in the ancient world, rebuilding/building structures in cities, where weathering of deeply buried cultural material is evidently than of shallow deposits. Analogical inference is not a modern invention.
3) for the attribute of omniscience of God to preserve the idea of god from non-self-contradiction, god must have anticipated the enlightenment of man, and thus the utilization of the material of the world--a world fashioned by god--in order to become like man, and not to rival god in luciferian fashion
4) the order of progression from simple to complex can be interpreted to detract from a God needing, I would imagine, practice – certainly not the M.O. of an omnipotent/omniscient God.

:?:
:|

God is the name of an anthropopathic metaphysic in my usage.

Godless non-antimetaphysical morality, maturing at a place of recognition of the limits of thought, and then of the limits of apperception *, is possible when pressure from positive realism, without suspicion of its own foundation in certainty of the objectivity of the content of perception, and without examining the foundations of the semantic structures of scientific language, had taken a seat to simply watch a totality happen and to know death as the gift of limitation.

I mean to say that we can be good without god; and so we, as empirical scientists, can be moral if careful about positing our generated facts as truths when we recognize the limitations of language. The infinite possibility all being, impossible to realize at once by an individual consciousness, can have a beginning and end in birth and death, and on with the future. In this way, we are relieved of the compulsive, self-perpetuating burden of knowledge. Evolution cannot retain every adaptation, but the archive grows, while our brains cannot at a rate that can possibly take advantage of the potential of this archive. Social animals, we are! If archaeologists, all together, without secrecy, could only build their oracular master database in my lifetime, I could die happy.

*[if I am to remain self-critical and critical in and of the scientific fashion advancing criteria of falsifiability/non-intuitive deducibility from a priori sense-data that are not colored by perceptual noise]

huh?!

At bottom, this is about some desperate attempt to disprove natural selection. You can augment it, but it has worked once on agrand scale "in the beginning." Yes, there are other proposed routes (ala Lamarck?), but we need high levels of radiation to see single generation change, and the chances of modifying sperm/egg exactly like this sudden mutation, of the kind god can create in a day are, well, undemonstrated. STILL we must wait several generations, to watch whether, for some reason, a random mutation from a known cause can "work." GMOs have advantages that can actually destroy the ecosystems that support them This is not success. Geneticists can operate the code, but must still restrict success to additive processes, and cannot "make" life, per se. Is god then the ultimate geneticist? Are you (Hawk) saying it is possible for humans to do the same?