Talk:Pangaea

Any Suggestions

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. Also, with the 'intention to destroy the world' part Philip, I was more refering to tectonic activity making the world completely uninhabitable for any human beings in the time suceeding the flood, rather than being part of the judgement of mankind which is embodied by the flood. --Entheogenicorder 07:37, 19th November 2008(EST)

"If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...": It is not accurate to say that the article implies that. It mentions two different flood-related possibilities. First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed. In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct. However, it then also says that most creationists believe that it occurred during the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred. Philip J. Rayment 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things." However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation.", which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures evolved to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--Entheogenicorder 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)

I understand what you are saying about animal migration, but just as you describe it as a "a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's", your response is simply a bit of hand-waving to say that we know how smaller creatures did it and bigger creatures can't. But there's been plenty examples in science of unexpected discoveries. It's a big leap from "we can't imagine how it's possible" to "it couldn't have happened that way".

When creationists point to gaps in the fossil record, we are told how sparse it is. Yet now I'm supposed to believe that it's complete enough to be able to dismiss an argument from a lack of evidence? If some things are totally absent from the fossil record for over a supposed 60 million years, then of what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?

No, I'm pretty certain that rabbits spread across Australia by their own means, just as the cane toad is currently spreading across Australia, despite human attempts to stop it.

Evolution from the first cell to the variety of creatures that we have today requires a massive increase in genetic information. That increase is not actually observed. What is observed, however, is decreases in information, but decreases are not microbes-to-man evolution. You can redefine evolution all you like, including into forms that creationists agree with (e.g. a current popular one is variations in gene frequency), but the point is that it is the evolutionary "family tree", not changes in gene frequency, that creationists disagree with.

I'm not sure that I get your final point. You seem to be saying that the idea of Pangea splitting up during the flood doesn't work because it doesn't explain animal migration, so you prefer the idea of Pangea splitting up after the flood, despite that idea not working because nothing would survive the split?

Philip J. Rayment 08:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

You got my final point exactly friend; that I came to a paradox in my thinking, one that I couldn't solve. That's why I re-titled this page as "Any Suggestions", and they are welcome. It's positive debate as I see it. I don't see that scientific evolution has described to any complete degree the world coming to be at it is, but at present, I am looking for an explanation which I feel is right, and that - in my opinion - can only be found through observation, experience and reason.

Where you talk about my hand-waving though, I feel this is maybe a little unfair. When we speak of evolution, it is sometimes suggested that what is observed is insufficient to explain microbe to man evolution, and I can understand that point. What I am saying is that, while we have observed ways and means in which small creatures can traverse large distances, we have also observed that these means are not usable as the means of transporting larger creatures. Therefore, I see no reason to make the assumption that larger creatures could have traversed such distances, just as you see no reason to accept microbe to man evolution. I'm not trying to force an evolutionary explanation on you, but to discuss the problems I see.

"what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?" I think the significance for me is that there aren't as many recent gaps in fossil evidence. If a creature was supposed to have migrated from somewhere within a few thousand years of today, then it is highly probable that there would be fossil evidence to support this. I can understand the point you make again, and I have to agree to some degree that fossil evidence can in some cases be incomplete, inadequate and somewhat misleading, as history shows, although this is usually older fossil records.

The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. Entheogenicorder 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)