Many Evolutionists argue their case (that life evoloved) through evidence obtained from our planet itself. The fact that an overview of Earth's continents could show that at some point (at the beginning of 'time') the Earths surface was one big continent, and it seems to have just torn itself apart and formed numerous different continents. However this does not even prove the length of time that the Earth has been here, let alone evolution. The Earth's centre is a molten core of metal, and as it boils and rises up through the surrounding water, it is cooled and it solidifies. Some of the magma (molten metal) will be cooled so much that it will solidify before it even reaches the surface, thus there will be underwater continents. However other amounts of magma will reach the surface and cool there, forming the continents. Thus the broken continents we see today, above the surface of the water, do not show any measures of time (scale(s)), but they merely show the randomness that the molten metals rise to the surface of the water. Interestingly enough the molten metals (as many of you will have seen on tv) are red, while the surrounding water is blue, and the land that is formed is green (or at least the fauna that covers it is). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
HHmm, if I remember correctly theres been one continent possibly 2 or three times before pangea. The earths surface being one large continent in the past says nothing about the evolution of life. We do have dating evidence, and if you consider the speed of movement of continets and the time taken to split up and reform, you get a long span of time. "The Earth's centre is a molten core of metal, and as it boils and rises up through the surrounding water, it is cooled and it solidifies." Nope. It rises through the mantle etc, then finally comes out, as magma, ie molten rock, not molten metal. "but they merely show the randomness that the molten metals rise to the surface of the water." Nope. There are patterns to it. You are just mucking about, arent you?
the core is molten metal and rock. mostly rock. rock and metal aren't the same thing. Much of the material which make up the ground layers of the continants are aged such and are chemically comprised such that they were (with a 99% likelyhood) once connected. Some islands (such as hawaii, guam, New Zeland, etc) were formed in the way you mention. They are conprised of basalt and other volcanic material, and not of granite/limestone/slate/etc, which we see as the main componants of the major continants. While at once point, all the dry land was once magma in the core, that was long,long,long before the single continent suposedly exsisted ("pangea", BTW). The flaw in your idea is the age of the rock which makes up the dry land. it is older than the fossils we can find in it. THese fossils, however, show patterns across vast oceans. Animals once exsisted in the east coast of South America, and the west coast of Africa, but no where else in the world. the chemical compositions of the stone in both areas is nearly identical. Assuming that the continents were never connected, why would a land-based animal cross oceans to populate another continent before it filled the rest of the continant it already lived on? It makes much more sence if they two land masses were once one, and the animal covered an area which has since been split down the middle by continental divide. While all scientific theory is always just that, thoery, this one in particular has alot of evidence supporting it, and very little suggesting it's not true. Everything from the pattern of volcano/earthquake placement to core samples to fossil placement and chemical mappings, it seems pretty clear that pangea once exsissted. Take a map of the world, cut out the continants, and stick them all together. they fit like puzzel pieces.
Mucker, Sorry, but there are patterns which give indications of time. For example, right now on the mid-Atlantic ridge, new land is being created beneath the ocean, and the ocean is spreading out. This spreading happens at a measureable rate. By seeing how far things have spread, we can determine the age of the Earth. Earth is appoximately 4.5 billion years old, like it or not.
Maybe, spurious, though many scientists believe that the core consists of mostly iron, but oddly, why hasn't there any on-ground iron mining? Contradiction again.... Or should I say iron-combination instead of iron only?
What exactly do you mean, curiocity? If you bear in mind htat the core is under tremendous pressure, and therefore likley to be stuck in place, how is the iron supposed to get up to the surface? Given also that it is a heavier element than the lighther and more abundant aluminium and silicon etc.
Uh, sorry Makes me think about that 'pressurized' part you mentioned. Okay, matter in the core experience high pressure, but due what? Gravity is one of the best answer, I assume, and if it indeed is, your argument about how iron cannot go up to the crust will be acceptable unanimously. What if the answer is not gravity?
If the answer is not gravity then youve got to throw out the window most of the physics of the past few hundred years. I wouldnt go that far just yet. Put it this way, what phenomena of the core is inadequately explained by theorising that gravity is responsible for it?
As the earth cooled down, all the lighter materials percolated to the surface and the heavier matter stayed deeper underground. The planet was thus covered in this this thin crust for a while. Then the earth was hit by a giant meteor of ice. The impact cracked the crust and set a chain of events in place to create the continents. The water helped to give the planet its atmosphere, created seas and rivers and of course was the catalyst for all life. That's my theory.
