First off I am not the greatest math student but I have been having an argument with a person I know who is convinced the earth is 6000 years old lol. He doesnt believe carbon dating to be true but then I brough up Pangea and he agreed that alot of geological evidence shows Pangea was fact. Well the math problem is how would I calculate the time it would take for continental drift to bring the plates to where they are today?

 

I would need to know the following: speed of continental drift, approx position of Pangea landmass and the current place of landmass.

 

I am 100% sure it accounts for well over 1 billion years or more but I dont know how to figure it out properly so any help is appreciated.

The easiest way to do this is say

 

there's about 6,000km between europe and the us

 

So dived that by 2

 

3000km They'd have had to travel in 6000 years.

 

That's 1/2km/year

 

or 1.3m / DAY!

All you really need:

[math]{speed}=\frac{distance}{time}\therefore{speed}\times{time}={distance}[/math]

Although, that makes the perhaps dangerous assumption that continents move at an even vaguely consistent speed. Klaynos made a mistake above: something moving half a kilometre in a year does not imply that it moved 1.3 metres every day.

Such math computations are not the sort of things which will make people change their mind. He could equally well come with other explanations for the supercontinent, which apparently existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

There are other explanations. Look at the galaxies, which are millions of light years away. Given the speed of light, you see them as they were millions of years ago. That's a very good indication of an older universe.

 

There are many more things, which support an old universe and an old earth.

 

The most important thing, however, is that it is important to keep discussions in a decent way and to respect other's faith. I know this particular kind of belief hardly can be supported by scientific observations, but there are more important things in life than this. If he really does not change his mind, equal good friends, isn't it?

Ty for the info, I managed to stop the discussion before it took an ugly turn and I dont think "brainwashed" people are easily woken up so I will leave the issue alone and take comfort in knowing I am most likey right. Just wish I was better in mathematics like alot of you are lol.

Don't dismiss yourself so easily. Almost everyone can count; even crows can "count". But only the most gifted can grasp abstract mathematics on their own. For most of us, it takes quite a bit of education and a lot of practice to become proficient in math.

 

As far as "proving" to your friend that the earth is not young, try some subtle hints rather than in-your-face arguments.

 

Telling him you just read an interesting article on a 3.3 million baby protohuman: not subtle.

 

Telling him there is an interesting exhibit on cave drawings at some local musuem: subtle.

Asking him why theres no dinosaurs in the bible: not subtle

rofl

could i just please know WHY he doesnt believe in carbon dating? Does he believe any science at all? If he doesnt believe carbon dating, he wont believe anything you say.

There is nothing to believe on carbon dating. It is just a method, used for estimating the age of a certain (organic) object. Nothing more and nothing less. This kind of issues goes much deeper and has a religious nature. For that kind of discussion, I, however, want to refer you to our "sister"-forum http://www.theologyforums.net and please do not start that kind of discussion over here. This is a math forum and not a religion forum.

Although, on the science side of things: it's worth noting that carbon dating of animals relies on an estimation of their diet and is flawed in the respect. And Woelen, surely http://www.originsdebate.com/ is the one to handle that type of discussion?

As far as "proving" to your friend that the earth is not young, try some subtle hints rather than in-your-face arguments.

 

Telling him you just read an interesting article on a 3.3 million baby protohuman: not subtle.

 

Telling him there is an interesting exhibit on cave drawings at some local musuem: subtle.

 

this is exactly what i thought when i was reading..