Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

This is my second time seeing this explanation on the internet, but this is my first time seeing the longer video which illustrates the point. Instead of continental drift in the sense of plate tectonics and their divergent/convergent travels, this man suggests that the earth was much smaller hundreds of millions of years ago, and that the apparent drifting of landmasses is due to the planet expanding in size.

Point and laugh or serious consideration?

Serious consideration up to a point, at least. As far as my opinion goes, that's way science works..The scientific method.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

it's an interesting theory, but it isn't possible. the earth occupies a gravity well and has an iron core, which is the result of late stage helium fusion. if anything, the earth is getting smaller, folding into itself more and more as time passes, like all celestial bodies affected by gravity. to prove this theory, you'd effectively have to disprove gravity. not to mention, if the earth was indeed that small to begin with, dinosaurs would have evolved to be much smaller than they were. also, it wouldn't make sense on several other biological levels as well. since there was always a set amount of water on the planet, there would be evidence that the sea levels were MUCH higher than they currently are. even if the earth was 70% of the size it is now 400 million years ago, there would be a high water mark on Mt. Kilamanjaro (and Everest, if it had been formed, but it wasn't until about 250 million years ago)

The volume of the world has no bearing on the proper size for dinosaurs.

It is unquestionably the case that sea levels have waxed and waned over the years - it is known that most of what is now central Europe used to be under glaciers or ocean.

You're also overlooking something else, which is that there are more forces at work than just gravity. Inertia is one major factor. The earth spins, and it spins at speed that varies depending on latitude. The equator spins faster than the poles, and therefore, inertia serves to flatten the world out in the long term. This is empirically visible today.

Another factor is convection. Heat rises. This is the cause of volcanoes and other forms of tectonic pressure such as geysers and mountain ranges. That heat does cause the earth's surface to rise over time is, again, empirically visible in both the short and long term through the archaeological and geological record, and, of course, the occasional volcano or earthquake.

So the thesis is reasonable. Whether it's correct or not is far beyond my knowledge.

Anyway, it's strange that a creationist seriously debate tectonics. How can you debate tectonics if you don't believe in evolution? Or were there people around 400 million years ago?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

the size of the environment is a huge determining factor for evolution. if the earth was the size this video postulates, at 650 million years ago, there would have been up to 80 land-based reptiles per mile2 and up to 5000 water based reptiles/pre-historic organisms (not counting single celled) per mile3.

resources would not have allowed them to evolve as large as they did. ever heard of the island theory and pygmies?

and yes, you are right, the sea level has waxed and waned due to climate changes, tectonic movement, and glacial appendages, but that doesn't change the fact that during the initial creation of the planet, it was bombarded by water carrying objects, and the earliest (and last) significant impact by a water carrying object was carbon dated as 890 million years ago, so we can safely assume that since then, only a minute and insignificant amount of interstellar water has been introduced to the earth since then. therefore, we can safely assume that the amount of water on the planet now, is very nearly the exact same since 890 million years ago. if we can assume that, then with some calculation we can clearly see that if the amount of water on earth that currently exists, existed on a surface that was even 20% smaller, the sea level would be 3590ish feet taller.

also, i'm not an expert but i am a great admirer of dr. degrasse tyson who wrote an article disproving this theory in his book Death By Black Hole, and cosmology is a substantial hobby of mine.

also you're only arguing with me because you don't like me.

also, we were having a pleasant conversation in WoW on launch day until you found out it was me.

/frowny face.

You're assuming that the total population of the world is a constant.



No. But from what I've read, pygmies are basically nature's way of hedging its bets. Pygmies live in an environment with extremely high mortality and uncertain food supplies, so they grow small and fast, just like every other organism that lives in such an environment.

The size of the world, or their world, has nothing to do with it.

Whether the world is half its size or double, it's still so vast that it's not a single playing field, and the number of participants isn't a constant.



We don't know this. The "dirty snowball" theory is still open to debate. What we do know for a fact is that most meteors are made mostly of rare earths.



As I said, much of the world that is today land used to be covered by water and/or ice, so what you dismiss is entirely possible. The Earth's crust and biosphere is not homogenous, and water can exist at many levels and in many states other than a fluid on the surface.



If this is so you would have engaged other forces such as inertia and convection in your initial post.



I'm arguing because I like arguing. This may or may not be news to you.



I'm sorry! The truth is, I probably got distracted. Happens all the time.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.