Earth tremor in Joburg

Post by **Kronos** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:02

Should I reveal the secret before people get upset?

OK.

@Law, QBM is kidding. He doesn't really think the earth is 5000 years old.
He's poking fun at New Earth Creationism.

Also, I'm a bit baffled by that last pic.

Clearly it shows that all the plates are moving apart, yet, nowhere on earth does it show any place where anything is closing in, or absorbing the expansion.
Does this mean that the earth is expanding?

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:06

QBM wrote: Before we go any further I'd suggest you STFU. You don't want me on God's side of this equation.

LOL

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:09

this should help. I'll c if i can find a better illustration on the plate boundries

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:13

Law wrote:
QBM wrote: Before we go any further I'd suggest you STFU. You don't want me on God's side of this equation.
LOL

I'm glad you see the humor (you don't) but I'm a bit concerned you didn't have an answer for my other comment.

Glad you didn't want to play though.....I'm sleepy.

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:19

QBM wrote:Your tectonic map is based on the reversing the current movement of plates and moving them back to a point they would be a million years ago

that would explain why the map is dated october 2005 - 1million

a better pic

This shows what happens when the plates seperate and collide.

this pic at least shows how the convection currents aswell

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:21

Law wrote:
QBM wrote:Your tectonic map is based on the reversing the current movement of plates and moving them back to a point they would be a million years ago

that would explain why the map is dated october 2005 - 1million

a better pic

I can see I would be wasting time on you but I am curious as to what you think your pic shows? Is it a magical time device?

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:23

which 1? i'll explain them for you if you want

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:26

Law wrote:which 1? i'll explain them for you if you want

OK...start with the first......I've got a bit of time.

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:33

We had a quake near Cape Town during 1969, I think. Its epicentre was at Tulbagh, took down some buildings there and started a huge fire on the Drakenstein Mountains. Richter Scale was 6.9.

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:34

lancelot wrote:We had a quake near Cape Town during 1969, I think. Its epicentre was at Tulbagh, took down some buildings there and started a huge fire on the Drakenstein Mountains. Richter Scale was 6.9.

Yeah....it was '69. Saw it earlier.

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:41

well this was the first 1 i posted

http://www.sftext.com/map/tectonic_plates.gif

as you can see by looking at the key purple are your converging plate boundries. if you look at the pics above you can see when 2 plates converg 1 has to give way and is forced under the other. the rock that is forced under then becomes molten and above this volcanoes are formed. This can be seen by looking at this 1

http://www.sftext.com/map/tectonic_plates.gif

which also shows the volanoes that are formed.

While at the diverging plate boundries the plates are seperating which allows the molten magma to push up between the two plates that forms part of the plate and moves away

I must say it's been a while since i did geography. Hopefully my explanation doesnt sux to much

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:43

Law wrote:well this was the first 1 i posted

http://www.sftext.com/map/tectonic_plates.gif

as you can see by looking at the key purple are your converging plate boundries. if you look at the pics above you can see when 2 plates converg 1 has to give way and is forced under the other. the rock that is forced under then becomes molten and above this volcanoes are formed. This can be seen by looking at this 1

http://www.sftext.com/map/tectonic_plates.gif

which also shows the volanoes that are formed.

While at the diverging plate boundries the plates are seperating which allows the molten magma to push up between the two plates that forms part of the plate and moves away

I must say it's been a while since i did geography. Hopefully my explanation doesnt sux to much

Geography huh?

The process does nothing to prove the age of the earth nor does it prove where the plates were 1 million years ago.

Anyway since you have this all figured out where were the plates 20 billion years ago?

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:47

Surely youve seen that diagram in school where there used to be 1 massive plate??

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graph ... globes.gif

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:50

Law wrote:Surely youve seen that diagram in school where there used to be 1 massive plate??

Sure, I've seen it. What do you think that proves? Ink sticks to paper?

Or do you mean that is where they (plates) were 20 billion years ago?

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:53

lol. as u said you that the direction plates and reverse them and you can see were the plates were 20 billion yrs ago. look at the link in my last post. although i dont kno how they were exactly 20 billion yrs ago.

here is a better explination of converging and diverging plate boundries :

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/ ... hor6715825

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:02

Law wrote:lol. as u said you that the direction plates and reverse them and you can see were the plates were 20 billion yrs ago. look at the link in my last post. although i dont kno how they were exactly 20 billion yrs ago.

OK to put an end to this the plates didn't exist 20 billion years ago. Neither did the earth which by scientific estimates is 4.5 billion years old.. You could take a tectonic map back infinately. Has the earth always existed? No. At some point the plates formed. The "map"you posted extrapolates the past position based on current observations and a theory of the age of the earth. That does not mean the map is correct, movements were consistent in the past, or that the earth is over 5000 years old. I'm guessing the ball example was too much for you.

Oh and it is geology

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:08

lol. i just realized that the earth is only 4.5 billion yr's old. yeah the earth was not around 20 billion yrs ago. and yeah the map does not prove the earth is 5000yr old but it is 4.5 billion yrs old though

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:09

Law wrote:lol. i just realized that the earth is only 4.5 billion yr's old. yeah the earth was not around 20 billion yrs ago. and yeah the map does not prove the earth is 5000yr old but it is 4.5 billion yrs old though

No.....the earth is 5000 years old.

Zell · Post by **Zell** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:14

QBM wrote:
Law wrote:lol. i just realized that the earth is only 4.5 billion yr's old. yeah the earth was not around 20 billion yrs ago. and yeah the map does not prove the earth is 5000yr old but it is 4.5 billion yrs old though
No.....the earth is 5000 years old.

No, its over 5700 years old.

Law · Post by **Law** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:14

ok your earth can be 5000 yrs old. just makes me wonder were this guys skeleton came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man

damb aliens

muffinman · Post by **muffinman** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:22

who care's how old the earth is? why don't you rather worry about how old the earth is gonna be.....

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:27

Law wrote:ok your earth can be 5000 yrs old. just makes me wonder were this guys skeleton came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man

damb aliens

It probably came from a dead guy. Does it prove the earth is over 5000 years old? No. It was dated using DNA clocks. This assumes that the rate of change has been consistent over all time. Not to mention the clocks are not based on human DNA. The radio dating performed assumes a certain amount of radioactive material at death. It isn't good to assume. Hell the scientist can't even get an agreed upon estimate. Three dating techniques........three age periods with little overlap. "Science" indeed.........

Mal · Post by **Mal** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:29

what are u on about.....its freaken science and common sense!

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:31

muffinman wrote:who care's how old the earth is? why don't you rather worry about how old the earth is gonna be.....

5-7 billion years older than it is today.

There probably isn't a single cosmic body (asteroid, comet, etc.) left that can take it out. This leaves the collision with Andromeda and being engulfed by the sun.

Of course the earth is likely to survive both events in some form. Life? Not likely.

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:33

Mal wrote:what are u on about.....its freaken science and common sense!

Cool.....explain it to me. I don't understand....