Your question relates alot to plate tectonics and the theory of evolution. First of all you must understand that material canot be made nor destroyed, just changed.For earthquakes, they occur because one lithosperic plate is too large and is now jamming in to another plate,in one case. This case is subduction, one plate(whichever is less dense) sinks under the other plate and gets melted by the immense heat of inner earth. and the rubbing motion of the two plates creates and earthquake. The melted rock-now magma returns to the crustal plates through volcanoes and sea floor spreading.Othrewise and earthquake is a result of plate sliding against each other. And to exlain how the gran canyon formed-well you answered your self. The colorado river which runs though it freezed and melted and refreezed but also put pressure against the side wals and picked up particles off the walls and floor and displaced them in other areas.The reason that that wont happen with floods today is because they are short term and back then it was lots of standing or running water. But have you ever seen a landslide-like the one that recently occured in california-that was due to saturated grounds,the same concept.
Also you asked how plates shift, well they move by conection currents inside the earth.Magma in the earth is heated by the inner core (which due to tons of pressure is naturaly heated)and rised to the mantle and sinks again when its cooled( or breaks through the crust)this constant circular motion works as a wheel under the crustal plates and moves them like a car,slowly.
EVOLUTIOPN QUESTIONS can be answered by a simple concept. For example, if two fish are born-one can swim faster and one has a small fin only by genetics. the fish with the small fin will die to soon to reproduce but the fast swimmers trait will be passed on for generations. With dinosaurs, the big ones were not always cold blooded so when the ice age came they froze and became fossils.Cold blooded reptiles like the large crocidiles survived and the bbecame the smaller crocidiles we know today.
And by the way the earth is billions of years old and with constantly changing or dynamic earth it makes sense that these changes have occured.
2006-07-15 04:00:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by fdselzer 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
keep in mind that you're assuming that the speed of sunshine is a continuing it is questionable. also save in recommendations Einsteins theory of relativity. What you spot gained't be precisely what you imagine it is. you've a valid aspect, yet you're assuming some issues so i'd prefer to sparkling them up: a million. you're assuming time is a continuing, and mild % is a continuing. God would have invented time after he invented mild, or sped up or slowed down time. If this sounds some distance fetched, then keep in mind that the tremendous Bang would have a great deal warped time, and area. there's a theory referred to as the Bubble theory that looks extra good than the tremendous Bang theory. 2. you're assuming that those products existed billions of years in the past. it is indirectly in accordance with commentary. a number of it is theoretical. There are some anomalies, i will't get into. I do not ignore that this rationalization would not fulfill you, yet i don't think of it is a smoking gun that Biblical introduction is pretend. we gained't bypass decrease back in time and degree it, so we haven't popular that those products are that previous, and they are that some distance away. I agree that it is ridiculous to assume all products are 6,000 mild years away because the Bible says so, besides the undeniable fact that it is both ridiculous to assume the Bible is faulty because there are stars that some distance away. both are round reasoning, and not in any respect in accordance with direct commentary (the time aspect of it). history in basic terms is going decrease back 6,000 years, so it continues to be a secret. The Bible does no longer state that the celebrities were created 6,000 years in the past, it fairly is an estimate in accordance with geneology.
2016-11-06 10:02:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 6 billion years old, for the last six thousand years of that people have been coming together forming societies. I live in the Black Hills of South Dakota, and last I knew they had formed around 10 to 15 thousand years ago, so you are being misinformed somewhere.
2006-07-15 03:29:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by tre_loc_dogg2000 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fact that people write things don´t make them true, many people tent to believe what is written mainly cause in their subconsciousness they think no one will bother write something down if it´s not true, the fact is that people lie when they speak and lie when they write too. The bible don´t have the facts strait and science may be a little bit lost as well yet I recommend reading with objectivity and make your own conclusions. Avoid believing what you would like and look for the most compelling facts to make your own believes.
2006-07-15 03:39:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
People who say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or whatever just don t understand God in his infinite wisdom and his divine plan for human kind. God is looking for a people whose belief is based on faith...not something that they can get their hands around. What people who lack faith in God fail to realize is that the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets are nothing more then the proving grounds on which our faith in God and love for one another are tested each and every day.
2015-03-25 05:34:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by blazen_my_way_out 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
the answer is quite simple - god is an arch deceiver who made the world appear as if it were 4.6 BY old when in fact it's only 6000 year old. this is to see if people are willing to completely shut down their brains and believe something that is patently absurd as a test of faith. what a perverted kind of god, eh
2006-07-15 03:35:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by bonzo the tap dancing chimp 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Folks who say the earth is only 6K years old do not understand science given our current scientific capabilities to prove otherwise. And, I would say, there's no convincing them otherwise either...
2006-07-15 03:29:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by nittany128 2
·
0⤊
0⤋