I would like to hear the explanations of evolutionists and gradualists on this. Scientists using a "pseudoscientist's" work. Richard Dawkins, one of evolution's modern spokesmen, says creationists aren't scientists, so why would "real" scientists ENDORSE their work?
Incidentally, catastrophic plate tectonics comes from flood geology, not old earth gradualism.
Here's an excerpt off New Scientist: http://www.newscient...to-pieces-.html
Technology: How a supercontinent went to pieces
A geophysicist in the US has created a computer model that appears to answer one of the fundamental questions of plate tectonics: what forces caused Pangaea, the Earth's original single supercontinent, to break up into today's continents.
Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. 'Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 'But this is the first three-dimensional model that begins from a small set of basic principles and accounts for the main features of this geophysical drama.'
And here, they are citing the above article for the breakup of Pangaea hypothesis. http://www.thaindian...o_10068561.html
Scientists have come up with a plausible explanation for the splitting up of the supercontinent Pangea, attributing the break-up to a mechanism which caused the massive land mass to eat itself to pieces.
According to a report in New Scientist , convection in the Earth’s mantle shifts the floating continental plates around, eventually driving them together into supercontinents every few hundred million years.
And this Geology article cites Baumgarder's model for the breakup of Pangaea. http://geology.gsapu.../8/735.abstract
In the biozonation of Baumgartner [sic] et al. (1995), the UAZ range of Mirifusus ... The first signs of Pangea breakup....
For those of you who aren't familiar with Baugardner's computer model you can find it here:
Please, no knee jerk reactions to the word "scripture." He is not saying that scripture is the final authority, no matter what, or no matter what data comes out. He is saying if the scriptural history model is true, and the fossil bearing layers are from a cataclysmic flood [the extent and condition of said fossils are not considered probable by creationists under an old earth model--AFJ], there must be a mechanism by which this happened. Catastrophic plate tectonics is a proposed hypothesis for this.