Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis
Rodin, you seem to have constructed a theory to solve a problem with a hypothesis that is already surplace to requirements. In other words, there is no need to invoke an expanding earth theory in order to explain geological observations, so why do we need to fix any problems with it?
|
I start with the observation that all continental land masses connect to form a sphere, and that the opposing pieces of the jigsaw match for age, shape, and far as I have been able to ascertain geology also. This seems very powerful evidence the Earth was once smaller. Furthermore the intervening oceans are much younger. So far I agree with the expanding Earthers.
Can you or anyone explain how, if the continents were once one Pangea, why is there a match across the Pacific coastlines and near-coastal land?
Like I say I would like to find fingerprint deposits matching both sides of the Pacific with more precision. Perhaps a geology forum would be a good place to enquire for help.
Amusingly...
Quote:
|
Rodinia began forming about 1.3 billion years ago from three or four pre-existing continents, an event known as the Grenville orogeny.[2] The absence of fossils of hard-shelled organisms and reliable paleomagnetic data make the movements of continents earlier in the Precambrian, prior to this event, uncertain. (See Columbia (supercontinent) for one possible reconstruction of an earlier supercontinent.)
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinia
Now is this more likely than a smaller planet?