Pangaea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richie_B

As you can see, Ireland is sitting on the Eurasian plate but is nowhere near any place where tectonic plates meet. Despite this, we still have mountains. Without continental drift, I ask you (Balaam), how is this possible? The majority of the mountains here were formed during the Armorican foldings, which took place between 250 - 270 million years ago. (I hope you don't disagree with the methods used to date rocks too. :)) That is why the highest mountains would not be very tall considering how old they are. (The highest one is only about 1000 metres/3400 feet tall.)

This proves to me that at the time these mountains were formed, the land now known as Ireland, was on the edge of two plates (possibly as part of a super-continent) and then gradually drifted away into it's current position in the Eurasian plate.

---

Ok Ritchie Can I say something here? The reason that may be is the fact that Ireland once could have been on the edge of a plate and athe nountains formed and then they moved of the edge of the plate more foolowed at such a rate that mountains didnt form with more plate being eaten up and the other end of the plate the plate moved acroos fromin more plate behind it. (Can you sort of catch my drift here?) The enventually when Ireland got out past the ocean the ocean eroded the rest of the plate away leaving Ireland the way it is were it is... and that oculd be a reason behind many mroe countries....

Balaam, I think you mean the polar Ice caps were larger which allowed species to migrate more easilly. Beacause if the ice caps shrink, ocean levels should rise and if the ice cap grows, ocean levels should lower. Lower ocean levels exposes land bridges or even great areas of open land and that allows animals to move freely where they couldn't before. Erosion eats away at coastlines and mountain ranges but some rocks are harder than others and take longer to erode, so some coastlines have not changed much at all in human history and others are changing every time the tide comes in.

I don't have an opinion on super-continents one way or the other. But if you are going to make arguments at least get the basic science right.

a couple of pages back i gave more detail
you are right it would need to include about 100 million years of erosion as well

it's important to note i'm stating this only as a possible alternative and i'm not discounting the possibility of some continental drift

are you the "real" rain man?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...m-Peek-001.jpg

Pangea existed, and there is evidence that it existed.

The counter-argument is that none of us are old enough to have seen Pangea with our own eyes, so it did not exist. There are lots of things that we have evidence of, and have not seen with our own eyes, yet we accept it as a fact. If seeing something with our own eyes is the requirement for something to be true, then we need to throw out almost every history book. We need to destroy half of our scientific knowledge. A large majority of all human knowledge is now debunked. All faiths are gone, since no deities have ever been seen by anyone alive today. Any law can now be struck down as unconstitutional, since nobody actually saw the founding fathers write that document. The moment your parents and their siblings pass away, it's okay to marry your cousin, since you're no longer related.

Personally I believe there are higher powers than we can perceive. I trust most history books. Without them, Conrad would cease to exist, I think. I believe germs exist, even though I do not have microscopic eyes to see them for myself. :) But, I suppose the argument a good fit for an atheist, anarchist, misanthrope, suffering from cognitive dissonance. I don't think that is a valid description for anyone here, so maybe we can let some logic rule the day. Maybe we can accept a truth that may not fit one's predisposed belief. We can accept the overwhelming evidence that Pangea was what the Earth looked like millions of years ago.

the funny part is when i started this thread i was fairly convinced that pangaea was a valid theory
i had really hoped that someone would bring up some points that i hadn't heard of
i didn't expect any proof because it was more than 300 million years ago

a week has past and i'm less convinced

now i think most people believe that the earth could have been rearranged because they haven't questioned the validity of the science. instead they hear some theory that sounds plausible and jump on the bandwagon. the earth is like some giant slide tile puzzle?

http://www.kirix.com/extensions/file...le-example.png

for the record there's a few statements i refuse except
"this is a fact, believe it!"
"i'm from the government and i'm here to help"
"trust me, i know what i'm doing"

Pangaea. Brings back my memories with the dinosaurs. We had good times back then..
I can't believe I set off that bomb in that Tyrannosaurus' Rex belly... I had no idea that it released chemicals that dinosaurs got killed! I still feel bad about it today..