If you agree with the geological evidence and continental drift, but think that instead of taking 4.5 billion years it only took 3000 years, then explain to me how there is any life on the planet. Two significant byproducts of continental drift are massive amounts of released gasses from volcanoes and fissures, and momentum of the continents from motion. If the last 4.5 billion years of volcanic off gassing happened in only 3000 years, the concentrations of SO2 and CO2 would be so high that the atmosphere would be toxic. Nothing would be able to survive for millions of years. Your map shows all the continents connected. That would make it easy for people to migrate from the garden of Eden and populate all the continents. The problem is that today South America and Africa are about 5000 km apart and South America is moving at a rate of 4 cm a year. If that happed in 3000 years, that means South America had to speed away from Africa at 1.7 km a year. If any continent moved that fast, the heat generated from friction would burn everything on the planet. When just one continent decelerated, all the momentum would also be turned into heat which would again burn everything on the planet. I would be interested to hear your responses to these obvious problems, or you can just delete my comment like last time and ignore reality.
Hi, Martin. Your version of the YEC account is not accurate. It is laden with unwarranted assumptions and some misinformation. For example, your figure of 1.7km per year is wildly inaccurate (or misleading). Both myself and established YEC science organizations have estimated the continents to have moved at around 1 to 2 m/s for a relatively short period of time followed by natural but erratic deceleration due to collision that persists until today. One possibility here is a short period of acceleration to reach the maxima, followed by a period of ~ constant velocity near the maxima, then followed by deceleration due to friction, followed by a collision that causes uplift and deceleration simultaneously, followed by settling, more uplift, and more deceleration. In this we can see that not all of the energy goes into heat because a whole lot of it goes into uplift (E_p = m*g*h at any particular maximum mass centroid elevation above initial elevation). As for heat calculations due to friction, you have to assume something you don't know and most likely isn't even true about what coefficient of friction should be used.
@@mmaimmortals Thank you for responding. I think you should do some math on your suggestion that continents were moving at 2 m/s for a short period of time. If we take the North American continent as an example, this plate is a slab of rock roughly 4850 km on a side and 38 km deep. The average mass density is 2650 kg/m3. That would give us a total mass of (2650 kg/m³)*(4850000m) ²*(38000m) = 2.37⋅10 ^21 kg. Since E = 1/2 mv² we would have E = 4.74 ⋅10 ^21 J. There are 4.184⋅10 ^15 Joules in a Megaton of TNT, so the energy that would be released when that continent needed to stop would be 1.13 Million Megatons of TNT. That is 23,000 Tsar Bombas just for one continent. Your idea that there would be a collision that causes uplift and deceleration without wiping out all life on the planet is starting to sound a bit silly. North America currently travels at 3 centimeters per year ( 9.51⋅10 ^-10 m/s) , and we already have catastrophic earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. Your idea of 2 m/s is 2.1 BILLION times faster than that. How does that happen in 3000 years without roasting/choking all life on land and boiling everything in the ocean?
@@PrometheusZandski Thanks for the response. I won't bother contesting your energy calculations. It was obviously a huge amount of energy. That isn't the issue. What I'm interested in is your idea about "roasting". How did you come up with this idea? It is totally unwarranted. BTW, we have catastrophic earthquakes at 3 cm / yr because the plates underneath us are broken to pieces and still collapsing in places. Something had to have broken them in the first place. Since you're attempting to do some engineering math, what do you suppose a deceleration curve looks like? You can't have constant settling over billions of years because everything would have normalized long, long ago to the point there would be no catastrophic motion left (without external influence).
@@mmaimmortals If you accept the energy output of a continent moving at 2 m/s, then you have to accept the result of that energy. When two rocks collide into each other with a specific energy, first the rocks deform, then they pile, then they break, then they vaporize. The energy of a continent has to dissipate somewhere. It's no different than two cars smashing into each other. At slow speeds, they dent. At greater speeds they jump on top of each other. At greater speeds they fly into pieces. Use a nuclear weapon and the car vaporizes and the vapor forms a wave that destroys everything in its path. Heat is the end product of all energy. It raises the temperature of air and water. A continent moving at 2 m/s will create heat that will liquify and vaporize rock that will dissipate into the atmosphere and sea. The thing that broke the continental plates today is the residual heat of the Earth's core and radioactive decay of U and Th in the Earth's crust. Over 4.5 billion years these plates move on top of the mantle at less than glacial speeds. The energy released by continental drift happens over hundreds of millions of years. We see volcanoes and mountains building and eroding without detriment to the living things on the Earth. You say "everything would have normalized long long ago", but the residual heat in the core with the energy of radioactive decay keeps the mantle viscous. Once you give up the idea that there are only 3000 years and actually 4.5 billion years, you don't need all the accelerations that lead to death. Slow moving processes over billions of years release energy as it builds. Living things don't get choked by volcanoes or roasted by the heat of rocks smashing into each other at ridiculous speeds.
@@PrometheusZandski Mr. Martin, thanks for the heat explanation, but this is not realistic. TRothrock If you accept the energy output of a continent moving at 2 m/s, then you have to accept the result of that energy. - Well, sure. When two rocks collide into each other with a specific energy, first the rocks deform, then they pile, then they break, then they vaporize. - Rocks moving 2 m/s don't vaporize when they collide. The energy of a continent has to dissipate somewhere. It's no different than two cars smashing into each other. At slow speeds, they dent. - Yes, of course. At greater speeds they jump on top of each other. - Yes. But we aren't talking about continents moving at speeds equivalent to cars that "jump on top of each other". We are talking about much, much slower speeds. At greater speeds they fly into pieces. - Yes. But again, we weren't talking about speeds this fast in the first place. We are talking about 2 m/s. Use a nuclear weapon and the car vaporizes and the vapor forms a wave that destroys everything in its path. Heat is the end product of all energy. - The Biblical model doesn't involve any nuclear weapons, nor nuclear energy sources. It raises the temperature of air and water. A continent moving at 2 m/s will create heat that will liquify and vaporize rock that will dissipate into the atmosphere and sea. - You've said this multiple times, but you haven't said where this heat comes from. Perhaps you mean from an alleged accelerated nuclear decay of existing radioactive isotopes? Or perhaps you mean from friction of the continental contact to the plates? Pick one (or some other source) you wish to discuss and focus on that. The thing that broke the continental plates today is the residual heat of the Earth's core and radioactive decay of U and Th in the Earth's crust. - I'm not sure who told you that, but it is demonstrably false. The majority of the radioactive isotopes in the earth are in the crust, not in the mantle. We have concentrated deposits of lead and uranium around the world and they are stone cold. Over 4.5 billion years these plates move on top of the mantle at less than glacial speeds. - Your mechanism given above doesn't work, so this is an incorrect conclusion drawn from misinformation. The energy released by continental drift happens over hundreds of millions of years. We see volcanoes and mountains building and eroding without detriment to the living things on the Earth. - We see that continents are drifting today. That is something we can observe. But where mountains are pushing up, something else must be going down. Ironically, the mainstream sources have many mountain ranges and the ocean floors being very, very young relative to a 4.5B year alleged earth history. And you haven't mentioned what a deceleration curve looks like yet. You say "everything would have normalized long long ago", but the residual heat in the core with the energy of radioactive decay keeps the mantle viscous. - See above. With much more radioactive material in the cold crust, it is the crust that should be melting, not the mantle. Once you give up the idea that there are only 3000 years and actually 4.5 billion years, you don't need all the accelerations that lead to death. Slow moving processes over billions of years release energy as it builds. - In case you missed it, the Flood is an account of severe bottlenecks across all of the biosphere. Mainstream sources also acknowledge mass extinctions and genetic bottlenecks in earth's history. Living things don't get choked by volcanoes or roasted by the heat of rocks smashing into each other at ridiculous speeds. - So back to this roasting. What is the source of the heat, and how did you calculate it? You didn't present an accurate model of the energy source (or dissipation) for the moving continents (for a deep time model or for a Biblical model), so how are you going to identify the source of the this alleged heat, let alone calculate the amount correctly? Your details are way, way off.
![MV วิถีชีวิตใต้ - ผา อัยย๊ะ [Official MV HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nODlkOUu9B0/mqdefault.jpg)
If you agree with the geological evidence and continental drift, but think that instead of taking 4.5 billion years it only took 3000 years, then explain to me how there is any life on the planet. Two significant byproducts of continental drift are massive amounts of released gasses from volcanoes and fissures, and momentum of the continents from motion.
If the last 4.5 billion years of volcanic off gassing happened in only 3000 years, the concentrations of SO2 and CO2 would be so high that the atmosphere would be toxic. Nothing would be able to survive for millions of years.
Your map shows all the continents connected. That would make it easy for people to migrate from the garden of Eden and populate all the continents. The problem is that today South America and Africa are about 5000 km apart and South America is moving at a rate of 4 cm a year. If that happed in 3000 years, that means South America had to speed away from Africa at 1.7 km a year. If any continent moved that fast, the heat generated from friction would burn everything on the planet. When just one continent decelerated, all the momentum would also be turned into heat which would again burn everything on the planet.
I would be interested to hear your responses to these obvious problems, or you can just delete my comment like last time and ignore reality.
Hi, Martin.
Your version of the YEC account is not accurate. It is laden with unwarranted assumptions and some misinformation.
For example, your figure of 1.7km per year is wildly inaccurate (or misleading). Both myself and established YEC science organizations have estimated the continents to have moved at around 1 to 2 m/s for a relatively short period of time followed by natural but erratic deceleration due to collision that persists until today. One possibility here is a short period of acceleration to reach the maxima, followed by a period of ~ constant velocity near the maxima, then followed by deceleration due to friction, followed by a collision that causes uplift and deceleration simultaneously, followed by settling, more uplift, and more deceleration. In this we can see that not all of the energy goes into heat because a whole lot of it goes into uplift (E_p = m*g*h at any particular maximum mass centroid elevation above initial elevation).
As for heat calculations due to friction, you have to assume something you don't know and most likely isn't even true about what coefficient of friction should be used.
@@mmaimmortals Thank you for responding. I think you should do some math on your suggestion that continents were moving at 2 m/s for a short period of time. If we take the North American continent as an example, this plate is a slab of rock roughly 4850 km on a side and 38 km deep. The average mass density is 2650 kg/m3. That would give us a total mass of (2650 kg/m³)*(4850000m) ²*(38000m) = 2.37⋅10 ^21 kg. Since E = 1/2 mv² we would have E = 4.74 ⋅10 ^21 J. There are 4.184⋅10 ^15 Joules in a Megaton of TNT, so the energy that would be released when that continent needed to stop would be 1.13 Million Megatons of TNT. That is 23,000 Tsar Bombas just for one continent.
Your idea that there would be a collision that causes uplift and deceleration without wiping out all life on the planet is starting to sound a bit silly. North America currently travels at 3 centimeters per year ( 9.51⋅10 ^-10 m/s) , and we already have catastrophic earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. Your idea of 2 m/s is 2.1 BILLION times faster than that. How does that happen in 3000 years without roasting/choking all life on land and boiling everything in the ocean?
@@PrometheusZandski
Thanks for the response. I won't bother contesting your energy calculations. It was obviously a huge amount of energy. That isn't the issue.
What I'm interested in is your idea about "roasting". How did you come up with this idea? It is totally unwarranted.
BTW, we have catastrophic earthquakes at 3 cm / yr because the plates underneath us are broken to pieces and still collapsing in places. Something had to have broken them in the first place. Since you're attempting to do some engineering math, what do you suppose a deceleration curve looks like? You can't have constant settling over billions of years because everything would have normalized long, long ago to the point there would be no catastrophic motion left (without external influence).
@@mmaimmortals If you accept the energy output of a continent moving at 2 m/s, then you have to accept the result of that energy. When two rocks collide into each other with a specific energy, first the rocks deform, then they pile, then they break, then they vaporize. The energy of a continent has to dissipate somewhere. It's no different than two cars smashing into each other. At slow speeds, they dent. At greater speeds they jump on top of each other. At greater speeds they fly into pieces. Use a nuclear weapon and the car vaporizes and the vapor forms a wave that destroys everything in its path. Heat is the end product of all energy. It raises the temperature of air and water. A continent moving at 2 m/s will create heat that will liquify and vaporize rock that will dissipate into the atmosphere and sea.
The thing that broke the continental plates today is the residual heat of the Earth's core and radioactive decay of U and Th in the Earth's crust. Over 4.5 billion years these plates move on top of the mantle at less than glacial speeds. The energy released by continental drift happens over hundreds of millions of years. We see volcanoes and mountains building and eroding without detriment to the living things on the Earth.
You say "everything would have normalized long long ago", but the residual heat in the core with the energy of radioactive decay keeps the mantle viscous. Once you give up the idea that there are only 3000 years and actually 4.5 billion years, you don't need all the accelerations that lead to death. Slow moving processes over billions of years release energy as it builds. Living things don't get choked by volcanoes or roasted by the heat of rocks smashing into each other at ridiculous speeds.
@@PrometheusZandski
Mr. Martin, thanks for the heat explanation, but this is not realistic.
TRothrock If you accept the energy output of a continent moving at 2 m/s, then you have to accept the result of that energy.
- Well, sure.
When two rocks collide into each other with a specific energy, first the rocks deform, then they pile, then they break, then they vaporize.
- Rocks moving 2 m/s don't vaporize when they collide.
The energy of a continent has to dissipate somewhere. It's no different than two cars smashing into each other. At slow speeds, they dent.
- Yes, of course.
At greater speeds they jump on top of each other.
- Yes. But we aren't talking about continents moving at speeds equivalent to cars that "jump on top of each other".
We are talking about much, much slower speeds.
At greater speeds they fly into pieces.
- Yes. But again, we weren't talking about speeds this fast in the first place. We are talking about 2 m/s.
Use a nuclear weapon and the car vaporizes and the vapor forms a wave that destroys everything in its path. Heat is the end product of all energy.
- The Biblical model doesn't involve any nuclear weapons, nor nuclear energy sources.
It raises the temperature of air and water. A continent moving at 2 m/s will create heat that will liquify and vaporize rock that will dissipate into the atmosphere and sea.
- You've said this multiple times, but you haven't said where this heat comes from.
Perhaps you mean from an alleged accelerated nuclear decay of existing radioactive isotopes? Or perhaps you mean from friction of the continental contact to the plates?
Pick one (or some other source) you wish to discuss and focus on that.
The thing that broke the continental plates today is the residual heat of the Earth's core and radioactive decay of U and Th in the Earth's crust.
- I'm not sure who told you that, but it is demonstrably false. The majority of the radioactive isotopes in the earth are in the crust, not in the mantle. We have concentrated deposits of lead and uranium around the world and they are stone cold.
Over 4.5 billion years these plates move on top of the mantle at less than glacial speeds.
- Your mechanism given above doesn't work, so this is an incorrect conclusion drawn from misinformation.
The energy released by continental drift happens over hundreds of millions of years. We see volcanoes and mountains building and eroding without detriment to the living things on the Earth.
- We see that continents are drifting today. That is something we can observe. But where mountains are pushing up, something else must be going down. Ironically, the mainstream sources have many mountain ranges and the ocean floors being very, very young relative to a 4.5B year alleged earth history. And you haven't mentioned what a deceleration curve looks like yet.
You say "everything would have normalized long long ago", but the residual heat in the core with the energy of radioactive decay keeps the mantle viscous.
- See above. With much more radioactive material in the cold crust, it is the crust that should be melting, not the mantle.
Once you give up the idea that there are only 3000 years and actually 4.5 billion years, you don't need all the accelerations that lead to death. Slow moving processes over billions of years release energy as it builds.
- In case you missed it, the Flood is an account of severe bottlenecks across all of the biosphere. Mainstream sources also acknowledge mass extinctions and genetic bottlenecks in earth's history.
Living things don't get choked by volcanoes or roasted by the heat of rocks smashing into each other at ridiculous speeds.
- So back to this roasting. What is the source of the heat, and how did you calculate it? You didn't present an accurate model of the energy source (or dissipation) for the moving continents (for a deep time model or for a Biblical model), so how are you going to identify the source of the this alleged heat, let alone calculate the amount correctly?
Your details are way, way off.