Continental Drift: 3.3 Billion Years - bestofyoutube.com

Main videos
Top videos
- All time
- Today
- Yesterday
- Week
- Month
- Year
- Random
Submissions (upcoming)

Vote

Continental Drift: 3.3 Billion Years

Posted 9 years ago by boyt in category: history

Comments (10)

Dr pickles (guest) - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

And they know this how? Where's the proof? I understand they can tell continents used to link up millions of years ago into a massive super continent, but any further back then that they just seem to make up any old crap and claim that's how it looked. The majority of this video was basically turds swirling round a flushing toilet, set to harps, but let's stamp it with the big FACT stamp and make a fancy animation, therefore it must have happened. The majority of this video you could have literally made any shapes whatsoever,swirling round the globe like flies around horse plops and as long as they eventually form pangea and then our modern map, it works apparently

Reply to this post:

Jan (guest) - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

How about: God created the heaven and the earth.

Reply to this post:

JJ (guest) - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

Lol. Uneducated halfwits commenting here :D

Reply to this post:

EaziG - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

care to explain how they knew all this then JJ?

Reply to this post:

mortimer (guest) - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

Just because you haven't seen and/or don't understand the proof, doesn't mean it exists

Reply to this post:

Dr pickles (guest) - 9 years ago

You don't seem to understand. I have no doubt that land made these sorts of formations in the past. Tectonic plates move, therefore over a long period of time land will move a little like this. What my point is, beyond pangea, how in the flying flip can anyone possibly know what land formations looked like? Even in this video, it says past 1000mya they basically have absolutely no clue whatsoever of how the land formation looked. Forget it then! Don't pretend to know if you have no idea, and pass it off like "it probably looked like this". No proof! It's a useless video. The first half of this video might as well have been a lava lamp as that's basically all they've attempted here. Show me the proof the videos maps are accurate, otherwise the video is pure conjecture

EaziG - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

Yeah, just skip to about 3:30 and it's more believable from that point on

Reply to this post:

andymca - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

This video is credited in the original post as the source of the very early data. It identifies mineral deposit data and paleomagnetic measurements as the basis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o9EhDwEzUQ&feature=youtu.be It would have been better if the video creator linked these in the video description (clickable) in addition to putting them in the credits (not clickable).

Reply to this post:

HoraceSPatoot - 9 years ago [ Reply ]

Like all of geology, this is an educated guess based on a large number of different types of information that becomes less accurate the farther you go into the past. It is not true (pickles) that everything before Pangaea is complete guesswork. The Wikipedia article on the topic supercontinent might be useful in that regard. As far as I can tell, this video's source data came from this site: http://scotese.com/Default.htm

Reply to this post:

causeby - 8 years ago [ Reply ]

Dr Pickles' question is "how could they know this" and the answer, which he inexplicably ignores is, "based on reams of peer-reviewed articles published over 150 or so years from thousands of scientists carefully examining mountains (literally, often) of evidence". Pickles has asserted "the arrogance of ignorance", the assumption that because he doesn't know something, that thing is unknown. What a fool.

Reply to this post: