Is Pangaea just another term for the Garden of Eden?

1. 82

   Rafiniposted 13 years ago

   Is it possible that Pangaea was the Garden of Eden - until the second sun burned out and created the moon, and the earth began losing time due to only having one sun? 
   
   That could be why the earth's rotation is wobbly and why the earth loses 1.4 milliseconds per day.  (I just looked it up, apparently the earths rotation used to be faster, like 6.5 hours per day rather than 24)  Think of the earth like a spinning top - the two suns kept the earth spinning at a certain speed and in balance, until the first sun burned out.  Then, the earth began to slow and wobble, which caused the atmospheric conditions to change and brought about the ice age. 
   
   Perhaps the Mayan calendar ending at 2012 signifies a decrease in the earths rotation, or a change in the earths stability, rather than the end of the world.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Raf:
      Problem is, there were no people on Pangea.
      It might have been a "garden of eden," but for whom/what?  :
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         How can we be  so sure?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Raf:
            That's an easy one.
            Pangea existed about 250 million yrs ago.
            "Man" began his journey to today only about 4.5 million yrs ago.
            The dinosaurs reign ended about 65 million yrs ago.
            Sooo, there were none of around during the age of Pangea.
            OK?  :
            Qwark

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               OK.       not! 
               
               I still have issues with carbon dating - but, I gotta admit, I'm taking Anthropology this semester, and may learn something about it!  lol
               
               How can anyone say when Pangaea existed?  I mean, how can anyone be certain about all these dates and things that happened prior to recorded history?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Raf:
                  The study of "diastrophism" and "paleogeography."
                  
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogeography
                  
                  Geological studies. Plate tektonics, studies of human genetics.
                  CArbon dating is but one of a myriad ways to determine the breaking up of pangea and its parts migrating around the globe to form continents.
                  
                  When you get into the study of "anthropology," you will study the movement of man over land bridges to all parts of the globe.
                  But that happened many millions of yrs after Pangea had broken up and the parts drifted away.
                  
                  Good luck in your studies.
                  
                  Qwark

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     oh, guess I should have kept geology on the schedule for this semester.  lol
                     
                     thanks Qwark. 

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes Raf:
                        Don't skip over geology. It is interesting and oh so important in trying to understand "Mother Earth."
                        Qwark   :

                        replyreport
                  2. 63

                     I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     That's some good stuff right there. The study of human movements throughout history combined with the study of genetics has given us a pretty clear view of how and when people moved around the various land masses. We know that native people of North and South America came from Asia and not from Europe, for instance. We also know that the inhabitants of Easter Island originally came from south-east Asia and did not sail west from South America, as some might have previously guessed.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        yeah, I remember some of what I learned throughout my schooling.  What I'm remembering right now is my intense interest where Anthropology and Geology seem to support the Bible. 
                        
                        My God!  Now I'm confusing myself all over again!  sheesh!! 

                        replyreport
                     2. 59

                        qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Yep, yer right DB.  :
                        QWark

                        replyreport
               2. 91

                  melporposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Rafini. It is all based on radiocarbon dating and other method of dating based on the natural decay of elemental isotopes in rocks, soil, and all living things. This how is scientists are able to determine the age of most things.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The best way to prove to people who "disbelieve" radio-carbon dating is to say the following:
                     
                     "If you believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by Atomic weaponry, then you MUST concede that radio-carbon dating is accurate".
                     
                     They both rely on half-lives and the destruction of nuclei.

                     replyreport
   2. 58

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That makes no sense, a sun does not become a moon when it burns out, so to speak. Where did you get the notion we had two suns?
      
      
      
      No, the earths rotation is slowing due to the tidal lock with the moon. Both the earth and moon "bulge" somewhat in the middle, these bulges tend to slow the earth's rotation while the moon slowly moves away from the earth.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for asking!
         
         It was an idea I had, that if the moon were once a sun, then a day would actually have been 28 days long rather than the 24 hour period we're currently used to. 
         
         My son brought it up (thinking the moon was once a sun) and my mind went wild! 

         replyreport
   3. 59

      usernameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There are many problems with this theory. First of all, the moon is too small to have ever been a star because a star is formed when the mass of a planet or moon crushes its core. The moon is not large enough to do this.
      
      Another problem is that there could not have been life on Earth with two suns. The water on Earth would evaporate. And if there was an ice age when one of the suns went out, there would still be an ice age now.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Rafiniposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Very sensible answer - Thank You!

         replyreport
2. 66

   goldenpathposted 13 years ago

   Up till the days of Peleg the land mass was all one.  Eden was a designated place on it.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      (what are the days of Peleg?)

      replyreport
      1. 66

         goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have brought religion into this category.  Scripture speaks of the days of Peleg when the land was divided.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Very interesting!  Can you quote book/verse please? 
            
            Ya know, I've always thought science would eventually prove the existence of God - when I was young I intended to be someone who took part!  lol

            replyreport
            1. 66

               goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               As you know I've always contended that science and religion do coincide and will continue to build bridges.  I believe that openness must be a predominant quality on both sides in order to obtain truth and understanding.
               
               I will offer you the passage....

               replyreport
            2. 66

               goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Genesis 10:25
               1 Chronicles 1:19
               Doctrine and Covenants 133:24

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Excellent & Interesting!!  Thank you!!
                  
                  
                  but, I don't understand the Doctrine and Covenants - I'm thinking that's religion specific?  No offense, but not what I'm interested in.

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I hesitated putting that in because it is religion specific.  I just wanted to be thorough though.  Sorry if I offended.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        No offense.
                        
                        I'm surprised at my interest - I thought that left a loong time ago!!

                        replyreport
3. 91

   melporposted 13 years ago

   Pangea was just a large landmass before it broke up into the seven continents we have today and in a few million years some of these land masses will come back together. Eden, a mythical place, never existed on this landmass because dinosaurs were roaming on it at that time more than 65 million years ago. Looking at it from a religious perspective Eden would be still here if there was such a place as describe by the Bible. The Bible doesn't mentioned God destroying it after Adam and Eve were put out of it, they just could not return to it the way I understood the story since he put an angel there with a flaming sword to guard the entrance.
   
   As far as the earth rotation speed is concern, the earth's rotation is slowing down became of the moon's gravity. The moon's gravity has a significant pull on the earth, thus slowing down it rotation because it is one-fourth the size of earth. The earth's axis is also stabilized by the revolution of the moon around it. If the moon wasn't there the earth's axis would be very unstable and will be pointing horizontally  and as well vertically in an unpredictable manner. As a result we will not have seasons as we now know it.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I understand the story of Adam & Eve, and the angel guard with a flaming sword.  But, my suggestion is, that the story of the angel with the flaming sword is metaphorical.   Allegorical?    Well. let's just say, not actually factual.   Just because the story doesn't mention God destroying the Garden of Eden doesn't mean it still exists.  (my reasoning in thinking Pangaea might have been Eden)

      replyreport
      1. 91

         melporposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That is my point. Eden was a mythical place. Pangea was an actual landmass on earth about 250 million years ago.

         replyreport
4. 83

   kerrygposted 13 years ago

   My understanding is actually that Pangaea was pretty much hell. Think about how unpleasant continental climates on modern Earth are for about 9 months of the year, and imagine that on a single massive landmass. Some scientists actually believe that central Pangaea might have had such extreme temperatures in summer and winter that it may have been virtually uninhabitable.

   replyreport
5. 59

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   I put this in my favorites quite a while ago.
   Check it out: (Especially you Raf.)
   http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html
   Qwark

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's cool!  Thanks Qwark.
      
      Ozone respiration - does that mean the ozone (technically, in some way) breathes?  I haven't heart that before.
      
      If fire came before people, then man didn't create fire.   Which reinforces the idea of man having seen fire (created by hot lava or whatever, or by lightning strikes) and working hard to recreate it.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hi RAf:
         Respiration just means an exchange of gasses i.e. like between plants and the atmosphere.
         I'm glad ya like that site.
         It's a wonderful synopsis of "time" and great for "trivia" reference.
         Qwark   :

         replyreport
6. 62

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   NO. the Garden of Eden can NOT be the same thing as Pangaea.
   
   Pangaea: 250 million years old.
   
   Garden of Eden (according to religious nuts): at most 6,000 years old.
   
   The difference is 41666% the claim made by people who believe in the Garden of Eden.
   
   There's just no way they could be the same thing.
   
   (By the way, if you believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic weaponry, you must agree that Pangaea is actually 250 million years old.)

   replyreport
   1. 61

      canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Rafini, seriously, you have got to get yourself into a school or library immediately.    You are dangerously misinformed about, well, everything.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         lol  Not misinformed, just searching!

         replyreport
   2. 82

      Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      if you believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic weaponry, you must agree that Pangaea is actually 250 million years old.
      
      
      Sorry, but I don't see the correlation.

      replyreport
7. 70

   thisisoliposted 13 years ago

   To be honest these kinds of discussions belong in the religion forum.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I was totally unsure where to place them because they seemed to be a complete mix of knowledge, science, philosophy, and religion.

      replyreport
8. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   To suggest there were modern humans on Pangaea you would have to have more than a "problem with carbon dating".  You'd have to have a problem with pretty much all of biology and geology.  The latter being where we learn that Pangaea exists at all.

   replyreport