slickinfinit Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woelen Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickinfinit Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Asking him why theres no dinosaurs in the bible: not subtle rofl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragib Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woelen Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgeek Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now