Traces of the Gondwana Supercontinent

[Philip]

Fascinating - I wonder what we can make of it?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/beneath ... continents

[RickD]

Fascinating - I wonder what we can make of it?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/beneath ... continents

Has to be fake.

Let's look at it scientifically.

We know the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

So, anything that doesn't fit into a 6,000 year old model, must be discarded.

That's how science works.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Fascinating - I wonder what we can make of it?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/beneath ... continents

Makes sense.... I mean Antarctica is at the "bottom" of the world where a lot of continents have banged each other....shouldn't we see these remains at South Africa as well, as that is one of the oldest land masses?

If one thinks about it all the continents of the south hemisphere along with India are traces of Gondwanaland.

[Philip]

Rick: Has to be fake.

Let's look at it scientifically.

We know the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

Rick's sarcasm does have a point (imagine THAT), and the kid is right.
Those most ancient rocks tell a story that science asserts a narrative about age. And so what about that - how are those ancient earth ages arrived at?

I tend to find that many who discount how scientists have arrived at an ancient (billions of years) age for the earth don't typically understand why or how they could accurately conclude such a thing, often asserting it to merely be based upon a variety of unknowable assumptions. And, just as DBowling has often noted in our creation threads, geologists, archaeologists and anthropologists universally assert far older indications of civilizations that existed far outside of ancient Mesopotamia around the time and at the location of the Biblical flood of Noah, and this is true even using very liberal estimations based upon the genealogies found in Scripture. So I thought it might be good for people to realize science's age calculations for these ancient rocks aren't simply pulled out of a hat.

Of course, the associated issue is, can we trust the sciences that assert ancient earth ages (billions of years)? And this question is especially relevant in how the Apostle Paul and the Psalmist (and other passages) tell us that the Creation itself has a witness that is IN ADDITION TO Scripture, and that can also theologically be reconciled and not contradictory of Scripture.

So, how DOES science and the study of God's Creation arrive at ancient dates for rocks and sites of ancient civilizations?

A really good, simple and visual explanation as to the how is found here [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvnRpxDamkk[/url] and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJHVQadoitY, in these short videos.

And a discussion of this can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F3KhzZ2eS0

Thoughts? Challenges?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Rick: Has to be fake.

Let's look at it scientifically.

We know the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

Rick's sarcasm does have a point (imagine THAT), and the kid is right.
Those most ancient rocks tell a story that science asserts a narrative about age. And so what about that - how are those ancient earth ages arrived at?

I tend to find that many who discount how scientists have arrived at an ancient (billions of years) age for the earth don't typically understand why or how they could accurately conclude such a thing, often asserting it to merely be based upon a variety of unknowable assumptions. And, just as DBowling has often noted in our creation threads, geologists, archaeologists and anthropologists universally assert far older indications of civilizations that existed far outside of ancient Mesopotamia around the time and at the location of the Biblical flood of Noah, and this is true even using very liberal estimations based upon the genealogies found in Scripture. So I thought it might be good for people to realize science's age calculations for these ancient rocks aren't simply pulled out of a hat.

Of course, the associated issue is, can we trust the sciences that assert ancient earth ages (billions of years)? And this question is especially relevant in how the Apostle Paul and the Psalmist (and other passages) tell us that the Creation itself has a witness that is IN ADDITION TO Scripture, and that can also theologically be reconciled and not contradictory of Scripture.

So, how DOES science and the study of God's Creation arrive at ancient dates for rocks and sites of ancient civilizations?

A really good, simple and visual explanation as to the how is found here [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvnRpxDamkk[/url] and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJHVQadoitY, in these short videos.

And a discussion of this can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F3KhzZ2eS0

Thoughts? Challenges?

3 billion years ago or so when the land appeared above the new global ocean, wasn't it a single landmass? Or soon after anyhow? I think it was called Ur, and was about the size of North America.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Ah, I stumped everyone it seems.

I'll look it up:http://endeavors.unc.edu/spr97/ur.html
There may be one before but by that point all land was under water or was tiny islands.