Evolutionist look at a world map and believe everything "fits" together as a puzzle. They say South America and Africa fit together, but did you know that it is a pure coincidence based on the current water levels of today, that they actually shrunk africa by 40% and rotated it to make it fit? Also, in the Pangea maps they provide did you know that they completely excluded Mexico, so where is Panama, Gauemala, Handuras, Belize and Nicaragua?
Please don't reply with lame awnsers such as that similar fossils are found on oppisite sides of the ocean. Similar fossils are found all over the world, including camel fossils in antartika? Remember there was a flood, a dead animal can float a long way in more than a year
2006-09-25 00:48:34 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Evolution is unproven, and thus merely a faith-based science.
There is no proof of evolution, there never was, and there never will be.
All the testing in labs to try to prove evolution was based on GUESSES.
2006-09-25 01:00:04 · answer #1 · answered by The Question Man 3 · 0⤊ 7⤋
Because there is a lot of evidence that suggests it. I won't go into details because I suspect I'd be talking to deaf ears.
The plates (continents) are still moving today, it can be measured. I actually grew up very close to the place where the American and Eurasian plates meet (Iceland) and they can measure movements there, like in many other places world-wide. If they're moving today, why would I believe they didn't move before?
Many places that were not a part of the Pangea have come into existance rather recently in the history of earth. One of those places is my home country, Iceland, which came into existance through a series of volcanic eruptions on the border of the two plates. Iceland is getting larger because of the continuing volcanic eruptions. There is even recent evidence to see how new land as "popped up" from the ocean... the island Surtsey next to Iceland came into existance through volcanic eruptions and became an island in 1963 when it "grew" out of the ocean.
So not all land in the world was a part of the Pangae, some of it came into existance later. Land is also shaped by weather, the ocean, volcanic eruptions, ice etc. through the times. It's an everchanging world.
2006-09-25 01:14:25 · answer #2 · answered by undir 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We know about tectonic plates and how fast and in which direction they move. We also have finds of, yes, fossils all over the world. And the shape of the continents allow for such a theory. All in all, Pangea seems to be a reasonable theory. I don't necessarily think it HAS to be the truth, but, again, it's reasonable. Do you have a better theory? As I said, tectonic plates move, causing earth quakes. You'll probably need to take this into account if you're pleading for a static earth.
2006-09-25 01:31:25 · answer #3 · answered by ThePeter 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Central America was underwater until the last ice age. And you're right about similar fossils being found all over the world, more evidence for descent from a common ancestor. But the amzing thing is the degree of similarity in fossils found on the theorized boundaries of Pangea. Yes I said theorized. It doesn't mean what you think it does.
2006-09-25 01:02:39 · answer #4 · answered by el bastard sanchez 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So what's YOUR theory, then? God created all the continents exactly the way they are now and they aren't moving? Good luck finding a scientist that agrees with that.
I went on Wikipedia and found an animation of Pangea splitting apart, and it makes perfect sense. And Mexico is also perfectly visible, so I have no idea where you come up with that.
2006-09-25 01:18:26 · answer #5 · answered by . 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A dead animal cant float a long way in a year since it rots and bacteria eats it then it cant float since most of it will be sunk deep into the ocean by storms or weather.
Also they say the continents are still moving since the power lines between usa and south america are being stretched even snapping some of tehm
2006-09-25 00:58:54 · answer #6 · answered by Iwishmyhairwasemo 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
pretty much the greatest evidence that there was Pangea is Australia. Some of the mammals found there are not found anywhere else in the world, and scientists have figured that that is because Australia was the first contintent to break off.
The animals that are there now did not survive anywhere else in the world, because of predators (like a kangaroo would not be able to outrun a tiger, but it would survive in an enviroment like australia where the biggest predator is maybe a dingo)
2006-09-25 01:02:09 · answer #7 · answered by Southpaw 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Usually it is the Creationist agruing for a supercontinent because it allows Noah to get all the animals to the ark and then back across the entire world. Don't have to somehow get the animals across oceans. Plus in Genesis 10:25 it appears to talk about the breaking up the Pangea after the flood. "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan".
2006-09-25 00:56:38 · answer #8 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you look at the wrold map from south to north across the artic and back down the other side to south you can see the world still is pretty much one continent.
2006-09-25 00:59:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lame answers such as similar fossils, the shape of the continents, tectonic plates.. yeah that would take a lot reasoning.
Wait!!! I got it! God did it! Gimme a break....
2006-09-25 01:15:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The fact that you ask this question in the Religion & Spirituality section already shows you are only looking for non-information to sustain your own theories. Try again in this section of Y!Ansers: Home > Science & Mathematics > Earth Sciences & Geology
2006-09-25 01:06:50 · answer #11 · answered by Caveman 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋